320 réponses à ce sujet

[maxernst]

Sutekh wrote...

DreGregoire wrote...

I'm not really sure comparing the systems is realistic in terms of characters leaving because they don't agree with the way you have done things versus the system in DA2 where they stay no matter what.

Agreed. Which is why I said "far from perfect".

What I really don't like in DAO's way to handle things is that the game mechanics force you to "be nice, always agree", while DA2 just gives you a different outcome, but still a rewarding one. You can still play a honest blunt Warden, but you'll miss out on many things doing so, starting with companion quests.

One isn't more realistic or better than the other in terms of roleplaying. DA2's better (IMHO) result-wise due to game mechanics. 

But really, DA:O doesn't force you to be nice at all, because you can generally overcome almost anything with gifts.  While the gift-giving makes it all better is kind of silly, it is perfectly logical that people who you treat well are more likely to come to you for help with their problems.  Whereas having Isabela take off on me after I had helped her recover the idol and had a fairly positive relationship with her but stay if I've treated her like dirt makes no sense at all. I can't see any rational reason for any of the characters sticking with Hawke in a rivalry relationship.  They don't really need Hawke for anything and (unlike the Warden), Hawke is not pursuing some larger end that they agree with.  Why should they hang around?

DA2 just forces you to be either always nice or always mean, which I don't think is that big an improvement from an RP standpoint and it forces inexplicable behavior on the companion characters.

The companion quests were more interesting and I liked the way they tied into the plot in DA2, but the friendship/rivalry dynamic makes no sense to me at all.

Modifié par maxernst, 05 juillet 2011 - 01:23 .

[Aaleel]

As I said earlier, all I didn't really like about Origins system was that there were too many gifts, which made it too easy to escape consequences for your decisions.

BUT, the fact that your companions, not you got buffs when they approved of you is the most realistic mechanic of either of the systems. Your companions were inspired to fight harder due to your leadership.

That's how things really are, whether it's a coach, teacher, boss, whatever, and I think it would even be more so back then because you're asking people to follow you into battle.

I can't see any rational reason for any of the characters sticking with Hawke in a rivalry relationship. They don't really need Hawke for anything and (unlike the Warden), Hawke is not pursuing some larger end that they agree with. Why should they hang around?

And I completely agree with this.

[erynnar]

Aaleel wrote...

As I said earlier, all I didn't really like about Origins system was that there were too many gifts, which made it too easy to escape consequences for your decisions.

BUT, the fact that your companions, not you got buffs when they approved of you is the most realistic mechanic of either of the systems. Your companions were inspired to fight harder due to your leadership.

That's how things really are, whether it's a coach, teacher, boss, whatever, and I think it would even be more so back then because you're asking people to follow you into battle.

I can't see any rational reason for any of the characters sticking with Hawke in a rivalry relationship. They don't really need Hawke for anything and (unlike the Warden), Hawke is not pursuing some larger end that they agree with. Why should they hang around?

And I completely agree with this.

Me too. And the new system in DA2 didn't make sense to me either. The gifts in DAO I could choose when and where to give them, like the conversations, and how many I gave them. I had control over it. And that is something sorely lacking in DA2 on so many levels.

[TEWR]

erynnar wrote...

Aaleel wrote...

As I said earlier, all I didn't really like about Origins system was that there were too many gifts, which made it too easy to escape consequences for your decisions.

BUT, the fact that your companions, not you got buffs when they approved of you is the most realistic mechanic of either of the systems. Your companions were inspired to fight harder due to your leadership.

That's how things really are, whether it's a coach, teacher, boss, whatever, and I think it would even be more so back then because you're asking people to follow you into battle.

I can't see any rational reason for any of the characters sticking with Hawke in a rivalry relationship. They don't really need Hawke for anything and (unlike the Warden), Hawke is not pursuing some larger end that they agree with. Why should they hang around?

And I completely agree with this.

Me too. And the new system in DA2 didn't make sense to me either. The gifts in DAO I could choose when and where to give them, like the conversations, and how many I gave them. I had control over it. And that is something sorely lacking in DA2 on so many levels.

Just because you had control over it doesn't change the fact that it was still a cheap way to earn points with them.

You had like 9 gifts per person, with diminishing returns. That's 64 points per person (not counting bonus points given because the gift was a plot item), which greatly defeats the point of getting to know them. IMO, Origins gift giving system would've been fine if they just stuck to giving the companions their plot items.

You learn that Alistair has no memento of Duncan, so you give him Duncan's Shield. That's what it should be. You learn he smashed his mother's amulet against a wall, so you give it to him. That's what it should be.

IMO, DA2 did it better because the gift is more personal to the companion. It isn't just a cheap way to earn points with the person.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 05 juillet 2011 - 02:04 .

[Aaleel]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote..

Just because you had control over it doesn't change the fact that it was still a cheap way to earn points with them.

You had like 9 gifts per person, with diminishing returns. That's 64 points per person (not counting bonus points given because the gift was a plot item), which greatly defeats the point of getting to know them. IMO, Origins gift giving system would've been fine if they just stuck to giving the companions their plot items.

You learn that Alistair has no memento of Duncan, so you give him Duncan's Shield. That's what it should be. You learn he smashed his mother's amulet against a wall, so you give it to him. That's what it should be.

IMO, DA2 did it better because the gift is more personal to the companion. It isn't just a cheap way to earn points with the person.

It was just too many gifts in general.  Should have been 2-3 per companion.  I liked the sentimental gifts like the shield and locket for Alistar, the flower for Leliana, the Grimore, or Sten's Sword.  Or some of the ones you learned from talking to your companions were good too, like the blue satin shoes, antivian leather. 

But there were just too many.

Modifié par Aaleel, 05 juillet 2011 - 02:27 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

Some gifts also added personality to some characters, like paintings for Sten. But one paintings should have been a "special gift". This is something I thought DA2 most certainly did better, though I'd add one or two gifts more.

[DreGregoire]

I was disappointed not to have more gifts for the companions in DA2. It seems like all those years that passed we would have more gifts than DAO not less.

[TEWR]

I think only one personal gift should give +15 points, and if there are two more, while still personal they just give about 5 each.


Just to keep it at a fair number of points.


DA2 is definitely an improvement over Origins' system of gift giving. At least in DA2 I can give Merrill a sylvanwood ring and a halla statue, or Isabela a Rivaini fertility talisman and a ship in a bottle (and if you count it, Castillon's ship), Fenris the Blade of Mercy and the book of Shartan.

It's a good amount of gifts and helps keep the friendship/rivalry fair.

Some gifts also added personality to some characters, like paintings for Sten. But one paintings should have been a "special gift". This is something I thought DA2 most certainly did better, though I'd add one or two gifts more.

That's true, but I think those tidbits were always present in the codex. Not sure though. Personally, I would've loved to give Sten a painting of maybe Seheron.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 05 juillet 2011 - 03:00 .

[Foolsfolly]

Regarding characters: DAII SHOWS, DAO just TELLS.

That's only slightly true. Each act has a new codex for each companion character and these things tend to tell more than the characters do. classic example: Anders with the Friendship path. The codex tells you important things the game had no time to tell us, such as Anders loosing more control over Justice. This is only viewed once in 7 years and then BAM! The ending...

Also the DA:O characters all had their own quests and things going on that was just as good as the DA2 characters. Varric's "I gotta sell Barturand's house" is about as well done as Alistair's "I wanna see my sister."

Only Alistair seeing his sister can have a drastic change in his character or not.

[Morroian]

maxernst wrote...

DA2 just forces you to be either always nice or always mean, 

No it doesn't Varric and Isabela respond better to humour than diplomacy just for example.

[Sutekh]

maxernst wrote...

But really, DA:O doesn't force you to be nice at all, because you can generally overcome almost anything with gifts.

Do not get me started on gifts. I hated the system with a passion. I felt even dirtier trying to buy their affection to compensate for "treating them badly". Apart from the special gifts that made sense, such as Morrigan's mirror or Zevran's boots, I usually ended up with tons of gifts clogging my inventory.

While the gift-giving makes it all better is kind of silly, it is perfectly logical that people who you treat well are more likely to come to you for help with their problems.

Indeed. The problem I had, though, is that disapproval wasn't always earned by treating them badly. Sometimes it was something you did that displeased them. And, sometimes, figuring out why was kinda hard. Sometimes, you would say something blunt, but with a good intent (such as telling Alistair to grow a spine and stop whining), earned disapproval and was punished for it by the game mechanics.

Whereas having Isabela take off on me after I had helped her recover the idol and had a fairly positive relationship with her but stay if I've treated her like dirt makes no sense at all.

Yeah, I was a bit baffled myself. Poor Isabela was insulted a lot the first time it happened.

I can't see any rational reason for any of the characters sticking with Hawke in a rivalry relationship.  They don't really need Hawke for anything and (unlike the Warden), Hawke is not pursuing some larger end that they agree with.  Why should they hang around?

That's where I disagree. I don't see rivalry as "treating someone badly" but more as disagreeing with them for something related to their core beliefs. Challenging them, in a way. If you don't go too far, other things such as friendship, romance, affection or trust can prevent a total break up. 

As for why they hang around? Charisma? Common interests? The pay / adventure / sex  is good?

DA2 just forces you to be either always nice or always mean, which I don't think is that big an improvement from an RP standpoint and it forces inexplicable behavior on the companion characters.

I really didn't have the impression I had to be always nice/mean. For instance, I often end up in full rivalry with Fenris, but not by being mean to him. We just absolutely disagree on the mage question, and when he whines too much, I tell him so. That does not mean I treat him like dirt. How is my stating my core beliefs on a given matter "being mean"? 

If you're talking about the tone (diplo/aggressive), I found out that it mostly depends on who you're talking to, and sometimes has no influence at all. You can gain friendship with an aggressive line, and rivalry with a diplomatic one.

Anyway, as I said, the system isn't perfect. It has many flaws, one being friendship/rivalry being stuck when reaching 100%, which prevents any further evolution or change (Yes, Anders, I've changed my mind about mages. Stop pestering me.), one other being that it's "neutrality", this time, that is punished (e.g. Isabela).

[Aaleel]

Indeed. The problem I had, though, is that disapproval wasn't always earned by treating them badly. Sometimes it was something you did that  displeased them. And, sometimes, figuring out why was kinda hard.  Sometimes, you would say something blunt, but with a good intent (such as telling Alistair to grow a spine and stop whining), earned
disapproval and was punished for it by the game mechanics.

I don't know how this was confusing.  Sometimes people tell their friends, teammates what they want to hear and they're fine with it.  But then their are times when they tell them what they need to hear, and good intentions or not, at that moment in time they're going to pissed.  So I don't see how the disapproval was an unforeseen outcome.

Also I don't see it as being punished, as much as being accountable for your actions.  Because in Sparta, errr Thedus, everyone, even a Grey Warden is accountable for his/her own words.

Modifié par Aaleel, 05 juillet 2011 - 04:02 .

[TEWR]

Foolsfolly wrote...

Regarding characters: DAII SHOWS, DAO just TELLS.

That's only slightly true. Each act has a new codex for each companion character and these things tend to tell more than the characters do. classic example: Anders with the Friendship path. The codex tells you important things the game had no time to tell us, such as Anders loosing more control over Justice. This is only viewed once in 7 years and then BAM! The ending...

Also the DA:O characters all had their own quests and things going on that was just as good as the DA2 characters. Varric's "I gotta sell Barturand's house" is about as well done as Alistair's "I wanna see my sister."

Only Alistair seeing his sister can have a drastic change in his character or not.

A lot of people keep saying that Varric doesn't change in his quests, but he does. If you bring Anders along on his Act 2 quest he finally sees how important his family is to him. Act 2 is where Varric has a change, based on how you deal with Bartrand.

Every time I spare Bartrand (which is actually all the time), I also take him on Fenris' Act 3 quest and he tells Fenris that killing family is the last thing he wants to do. I don't know if the two are related (sparing Bartrand and Varric's comment. I think they are), but it does show a change in Varric.

[Sutekh]

Aaleel wrote...

I don't know how this was confusing.  Sometimes people tell their friends, teammates what they want to hear and they're fine with it.  But then their are times when they tell them what they need to hear, and good intentions or not, at that moment in time they're going to pissed.  So I don't see how the disapproval was an unforeseen outcome.

Also I don't see it as being punished, as much as being accountable for your actions.  Because in Sparta, errr Thedus, everyone, even a Grey Warden is accountable for his/her own words.

OK. Let me clarify.

It isn't the disapproval in itself that bothers me, it's the game mechanics strongly encouraging the player to play an hypocritical douchebag. Yes, you can roleplay honestly, but the results make it very tempting not to. And the gifts system makes it even worse, IMHO.

[Aaleel]

Sutekh wrote...

Aaleel wrote...

I don't know how this was confusing.  Sometimes people tell their friends, teammates what they want to hear and they're fine with it.  But then their are times when they tell them what they need to hear, and good intentions or not, at that moment in time they're going to pissed.  So I don't see how the disapproval was an unforeseen outcome.

Also I don't see it as being punished, as much as being accountable for your actions.  Because in Sparta, errr Thedus, everyone, even a Grey Warden is accountable for his/her own words.

OK. Let me clarify.

It isn't the disapproval in itself that bothers me, it's the game mechanics strongly encouraging the player to play an hypocritical douchebag. Yes, you can roleplay honestly, but the results make it very tempting not to. And the gifts system makes it even worse, IMHO.

But this is my problem with some of the criticism of the Origins system.  I always see, the game forces me to be two faced.  No it doesn't.  People seem to want a system where they can say, do, act however they want without consequence.

They want no matter what, to be able to have companions trust them enough to get companion quests, romance whoever they want, and get a stat bonus from a companion no matter what.  That's just not a realistic system to me.

There were some times in DA2 I was just speechless.  I had a teammate in college who had an ancestor that was a slave.  I tried to imagine me saying, yeah I thought slavery was a good idea, I'm even getting an illegal slave.  That's how I saw the scene where you take on a slave right in front on Fenris, who was a actual former slave.  There are some things you can agree to disagree on and stay friends, and then they're those that you can't.  Fenris hadn't even known Hawke long when that happened if I remember correctly.  From how Fenris came across to me at that point of the game, he would have tried to cut down Hawke right on the spot.

I didn't give Merrill the tool, she yelled at me said she hated me and all kinds of stuff, I got 110 Rivalry (not a typo), but she still stayed around, and to my complete and utter shock you could still romance her after all of this.

I like Origins because you inspired people to fight harder for you, they got stat bonuses based on their approval of how you led them.  They wanted to fight for you.  If they didn't approve they weren't insprired to fight harder but they still stayed because of the greater cause, until you did something so agregious they left.   That system made sense to me.  It was just too many gifts that let people avoid consequences.

Modifié par Aaleel, 05 juillet 2011 - 02:52 .

[Pasquale1234]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...
Just because you had control over it doesn't change the fact that it was still a cheap way to earn points with them.

You had like 9 gifts per person, with diminishing returns. That's 64 points per person (not counting bonus points given because the gift was a plot item), which greatly defeats the point of getting to know them. IMO, Origins gift giving system would've been fine if they just stuck to giving the companions their plot items.

You learn that Alistair has no memento of Duncan, so you give him Duncan's Shield. That's what it should be. You learn he smashed his mother's amulet against a wall, so you give it to him. That's what it should be.

IMO, DA2 did it better because the gift is more personal to the companion. It isn't just a cheap way to earn points with the person.

Both games had gifts that were especially meaningful for the companions.  DAO moreso, imho, because the companions told you stories about specific items that you were then able to find for them.

There were some DLCs (Feastday Gifts and Pranks) with nothing but special gifts for companions, some of which would give +50 or -50.  I don't care much for manipulating them in that way, but it is pretty funny to see them using those items.

The gifting mechanic in DAO didn't bother me, because I chose not to abuse it.  It is a mechanic that can be abused by players who choose to use it in that way.  It is also a mechanic that allows players to roleplay choices that companions would not like without having to deal with the consequences of that companion leaving the party.  DA2 gave us the rivalry system instead, and took away any chance of companions choosing to leave, even if the companion remains at neutral or goes to rivaly.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Aaleel wrote...
I like Origins because you inspired people to fight harder for you, they got stat bonuses based on their approval of how you led them.  They wanted to fight for you.  If they didn't approve they weren't insprired to fight harder but they still stayed because of the greater cause, until you did something so agregious they leave.   That system made sense to me.  It was just too many gifts that let people avoid consequences.

If anything, I don't think the Origin system was harsh enough (not because of gifts only). A -5 approval for you murdering an innocent person is not realistic. Killing people is not a matter of differences of opinion. It was hard to make companions in Origin genuinely hate you unless you actively try.

I personally would prefer two meters instead of one. Respect and liking should be different from each other and should have different meters. And preferrably, they would be harsh. That's actions having appropriate reactions.

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

They probably ought to have two different scales, one for disposition and one for respect.

The former is dependent on the character's personality, the latter is based on their beliefs and actions. How you interact with them and other characters, the plot, etc determines what level each of these aspects are.

Similar to the Lawful/Neutral/Chaotic & Good/Neutral/Evil system from D&D. Personality/morality.

So, you could have companions who don't like you but respect you, the equivalent of Dragon Age 2's Rivalry. Similarly, you could have those who outright hate you. While you may also have those who like you as a person, but hate what you stand for as well as people who adore and worship you.

Don't know how this would play out in an actual game, but conceptually it's sound since it's just a rehashed D&D mechanic adapted for individual characters.

edit: ROFL. I was typing this up when KoP posted his. The similarity in thoughts is coincidental.

Modifié par mrcrusty, 05 juillet 2011 - 03:02 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

mrcrusty wrote...
edit: ROFL. I was typing this up when KoP posted his. The similarity in thoughts is coincidental.

Great minds.

I am not a huge fan of the DD system, but it would add more complexity and might make Bioware finaly grow beyond its bipolar mindset.

[xkg]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
I personally would prefer two meters instead of one. Respect and liking should be different from each other and should have different meters. And preferrably, they would be harsh. That's actions having appropriate reactions.

I agree with that completly.
About month ago I posted something about 2 variations of relationship system.
1. One single "triangle like" meter.
2. Two separate meters

But it didn't catch any attention back then.

http://social.biowar...98165/1#7398330

Modifié par xkg, 05 juillet 2011 - 03:08 .

[Pasquale1234]

xkg wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
I personally would prefer two meters instead of one. Respect and liking should be different from each other and should have different meters. And preferrably, they would be harsh. That's actions having appropriate reactions.

I agree with that completly.
About month ago I posted something about 2 variations of relationship system.
1. One single "triangle like" meter.
2. Two separate meters

But it didn't catch any attention back then.

http://social.biowar...98165/1#7398330

I remember those discussions, and participated in some of them.

Loved the idea of having separate metrics for liking someone (based on how they treat you) versus respecting someone (for their leadership and moral stances).

Wanking about how it would be treated in the game -

I think I would like for romance to require medium to high values on both scales.

A companion would bail if:
 - Either value fell below a certain point
- The sum of the two values fell below a certain point