27 réponses à ce sujet

[Fidget6]

I personally thought it was a great feature because it really helped enhance the immersion and connection to the characters. It's true unless you were romancing a character it really doesn't make much of a difference, but you feel like it does at times because you get so connected to these characters. I know there have been times where I've gone, "Whoops, I accidentally hurt Merrill's feelings, better reload and select a different option." I think it's a very simple, yet very effective system for that extra bit of immersion.

EDIT: Err..... I meant to put this in the "Companions and NPC discussion" forum. Ah well, it kind of works here too I guess, lol.

Modifié par Fidget6, 23 juin 2011 - 03:48 .

[Shadow of Light Dragon]

I liked it, but like many systems it's not perfect.

My main problem with it was that Friendship assumed you agreed with a NPC's motives (like Anders wanting all mages free) and Rivalry assumed you didn't, which isn't always the case. It was quite easy to garner Friendship by treating companions well and Rivalry for being a douche.

Relationships are a bit more nuanced than that. You can disagree with someone about a lot of things but still be really really good friends. I do kinda wish NPCs would differentiate between 'Friendship (how the PC treats me)' AND 'Approval (how the PC treats other people/matters I care about)'. It would probably take some fancy dialogue flag work., but working out relationships on two scales rather than one blanket meter would, I think, be an improvement.

Friendly/Neutral/Hostile + Approving/Neutral/Rival.

It'd be an interesting mix for a game that really wanted to put an extreme amount of work into PC/NPC relationships, I guess.

[jaybee93]

I like it too. I love that I can ****** someone off and still have them stay with me, agreeing to disagree or even in a romance. The strict friendship system was irritating in having to agree with someone all the time just so they didn't stomp off.

Shadow of Light Dragon, I dealt with the friendship=approval thing by looking at it like if someone was my friend they often *assumed* I agreed with them (which often happens in life.) But yes, with some fancy dialogue flag work it could be more realistic.

[Salaya]

It's a great implementation, but not well executed

Much more dialog is needed to make system work properly. But yes... it is indeed a great idea all the implications of the rivalry path.

My impression, though, is that approval needs to be present in some way or another. For much innovative rivalry could be, is still mandatory that some choices make characters to frontally dislike you, up to the point of leaving or openly confront your actions. The rivalry ends with respect, and thats cool. But overlooks the fact that someone could just... well, hate you.

[Wulfram]

It was a good idea, but the implementation was problematic.

Mostly, I think they didn't focus it enough on one single issue. If Fenris' big thing is mages, don't give me lots of Friendship points for sharing his distaste for slavers. If Sebastian's big issue is Ambition, don't give me a big bunch of friendship for not wanting a crusade called against Kirkwall.

Also, just being a jerk shouldn't give rivalry - if anything, it should always move you towards the middle.

[Cornelius119]

the rivalry system made it easier to decide what i think is right and not what the companions in the party think is right

[Red_Jezzabelle]

I liked it, I also liked how the dialogue changed based on if you had a friendship or rivalry going with the character. While it wasn't always perfect I prefered it to the DAO system where you could essentially buy their approval by giving them gifts.

[RangerSG]

Imperfect, but yes, and it's a qualitative improvement from the traditional "influence" systems Bioware and Obsidian used.

That said, Rivalry doesn't quite work right, IMHO. You get "positive" rival points for *both* being a jerk and philosophical disagreements. That results in rivalmances where you treat the person like crap until they come onto you. Now that might happen in reality occasionally, but unless they WANTED the NPCs to be abused spouses, I don't think that was what was intended.

Ideally, I'd say that being a jerk, as opposed to just disagreeing, should always send the meter back toward 0 (in the center). And where 0 in the beginning is the normal "I don't know you," state, at the end it would be the "apathetic" state, where one would be much more likely to "betray" or leave the PC from.

[maxernst]

RangerSG wrote...

That said, Rivalry doesn't quite work right, IMHO. You get "positive" rival points for *both* being a jerk and philosophical disagreements. That results in rivalmances where you treat the person like crap until they come onto you. Now that might happen in reality occasionally, but unless they WANTED the NPCs to be abused spouses, I don't think that was what was intended.
 

I hate it for precisely that reason.  So far as I can tell, the ways in which you get rivalry points are indistinguishable from how you got disapproval points, except that now you' have a choice of either kissing up to your companions (like you tend to Origins) or bullying them and inexplicably, the more you treat like dirt, the more loyal they are.  If you're somebody with whom they have occasional polite disagreements they abandon you.  The game punishes you for not taking an extreme stance both in your actions and in your interactions with your companions.

[DreamerM]

If the friendship/rivalry system is going to stay, at the very, very least it needs to be seriously fine-tuned.

For example, Anders. I friended him in my last playthrough, but I want to rival him in this one. BUT, I also want this to be a pro-mage playthrough.

Now, this CAN be done, by just being really careful about which missions you take Anders on and being a jerk to him in conversations, but now his dialog makes no sense. For example, I tell him fusing with Justice was a stupid idea, I get Rivalry points, and now he's yelling about me giving Mages over to Templars even though I've let every single apostate go free. For some reason you can't be pro-mage AND anti-Abomination.

There should be more then two paths for any given relationship to go, and there should definitely be more then just three dialog options (Saint, Snark, and Jerk).

[Mike 9987]

compared to the first game? it was a HUGE improvement. if you try to make characters in origins dislike you, they either leave or try to kill you AND you cant get their sidequest as well as tons of dialogue is missed. i wanted to make allistair and leliana hate me through the whole game, but not getting their side quest meant i could not harden them. it makes no sense to have to be good to leliana, then tell her killing is good and fun.

[senior caliente]

its a YAY

[maxernst]

Mike 9987 wrote...

compared to the first game? it was a HUGE improvement. if you try to make characters in origins dislike you, they either leave or try to kill you AND you cant get their sidequest as well as tons of dialogue is missed. i.

If they dislike you, why would they open up to you about their past?  It makes no sense for them to listen to you if you've been rude to them throughout the game and made decisions they consider contemptible.  Basically, you're complaining that the characters in DA:O respond to the way you treat them in a logical manner.

[Morroian]

Yay! But still needs more refinement.

[AreleX]

i'm all for it. it's a great concept, but as has been said, needs a bit of work to get it just right. i vastly prefer it to the 'just tell everyone what they want to hear' options of the past.

it's a step in the right direction.

[Redcoat]

It solved the problem that Origins had, where you were punished for disagreeing with party members by losing their stat bonuses. Unfortunately, the F/R system only really measures whether you and a party member have a disagreement and not whether or not they like or despise you. As people have pointed out, it's possible to disagree with someone and still be friends with them.

[DreamerM]

Problem is, you can't RIVAL! one person on one matter and still FRIEND!them on another.

For example, when talking to Anders, you can dissaprove of Justice/Vengence/Abominations/Glowy-Murder-Man all you want, he'll still consider you a friend if you side with mages. And being Pro-Mage will earn you rivalry with Fenris, no matter how many slavers you gut.

[Redcoat]

One possible solution would be to have two dimensions (like an X and Y axis), one for "I agree/disagree with your course of action" and another "I like/dislike you." Ideally, you could have situations where one of your party members might say something like, "I know we're friends, but I've got a problem with the way you're handling things," or conversely, "You're a real bastard, Hawke, but I can't argue with the way you get results."

Modifié par Redcoat, 27 juin 2011 - 06:03 .

[DreamerM]

I do demand more then three possible responses to conversation options. Even at their most railroady, DA:O gave us at least five. And please Bioware, please stop labeling them. Lets learn the hard way which response is Flirty vs. Jerky vs. Nice vs. Charming vs. Sociopath, the way we're supposed to: by guessing and then reloading old saves if it doesn't work out.

[Morroian]

DreamerM wrote...

I do demand more then three possible responses to conversation options.

We do get more than 3, its only 3 that are tracked for personaility purposes, or 6 to be more precise with the other 3 related responses. In DAO the investigate options didn't get labelled as such.

[DreamerM]

Morroian wrote...

DreamerM wrote...

I do demand more then three possible responses to conversation options.

We do get more than 3, its only 3 that are tracked for personaility purposes, or 6 to be more precise with the other 3 related responses. In DAO the investigate options didn't get labelled as such.

Why did they need to be labelled as such? And why can't there be more fudge factor between my Investigate and my Personality? You can't ask a snarky question, for example.

And why only 3 personality options? I wasn't aware there were only 3 types of personalities out there...

[R0vena]

I loved the new system, but I agree it could use some improvements.

RangerSG wrote...

You get "positive" rival points for *both* being a jerk and philosophical disagreements. 

This. Constantly being plain rude to the character shouldn't result in their respect.

[PinkShoes]

Really liked it. Because in Origins i had to make my characters say certain things sometimes out of character to make them happy so they didnt leave or i didnt kill them when i needed them around lol so yeah i really liked it. But i did wish it came up in the banter a bit more...maybe it does and i just havent heard it yet but something like "You and Hawke dont seem to really get along?" "i respect Hawke" somthing along those lines.

[lobi]

Metagaming your companions for the stats bonus would have to be one of the lamest ways to play an RPG ever.
As well as 'Harden' I want 'rule by fear' and 'Companion rebellion'.
Bring back the 'murder a companion events'.
Would also have liked the option to eat one of the companions while lost in the deep roads. Would have finally have had a reason for Merril being on the expedition.
Also evil Hawk should not have a problem with the fact that "It's poison, it KILLS people.

Modifié par lobi, 27 juin 2011 - 02:26 .

[Apathy1989]

+1 for "Yay but needs refinement"

DAO you could be an ass, give them gifts and no worries. That was flawed.
DA2 you could be an ass, and romance them. Need Love/Hate, Friend/Rival as 2 different dimensions of a relationship.