159 réponses à ce sujet

[FieryDove]

maxernst wrote...

  Of course, it's possible to keep everybody if you metagame, but I refuse to bring Fenris along on quests where I'm planning to help mages just so that I can push his rivalry button. I simply find the rivalry relationships incomprehensible.  It's completely irrational for the characters to hang around a Hawke that treats them badly and repeatedly makes them do things that go against their core beliefs.  Sure, Hawke has done them some favors, but not enough for them to repeatedly risk their lives in a cause they don't believe in. 

It was impossible for me to play a pro-mage hawke but approved of BM/demon dealing without Janders going all mad accusing me of wanting mages enslaved/beat etc.

I liked the idea of rivalry/friendship but it does needs some refinement.

[esper]

FieryDove wrote...

maxernst wrote...

  Of course, it's possible to keep everybody if you metagame, but I refuse to bring Fenris along on quests where I'm planning to help mages just so that I can push his rivalry button. I simply find the rivalry relationships incomprehensible.  It's completely irrational for the characters to hang around a Hawke that treats them badly and repeatedly makes them do things that go against their core beliefs.  Sure, Hawke has done them some favors, but not enough for them to repeatedly risk their lives in a cause they don't believe in. 

It was impossible for me to play a pro-mage hawke but approved of BM/demon dealing without Janders going all mad accusing me of wanting mages enslaved/beat etc.

I liked the idea of rivalry/friendship but it does needs some refinement.

My Hawke is a blood mage and approve of blodmagic, she has never had a problem with Anders...

But, yes, it needs refinement. Personally I think that you should only get point for the companions red bottom issue as to not have peopel confuse two subject, and you should also get points even if they are not there because if everyone knows who Hawke has slept with the next bloody day, then Fenris also knows that I set some mages free.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Not being able to keep secrets from our companions is irritating.

[esper]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Not being able to keep secrets from our companions is irritating.

Well since the banter says that you can't, I want the approval system to reflect that.

[Persephone]

maxernst wrote...

Persephone wrote...

maxernst wrote...

Persephone wrote...

FieryDove wrote...

Persephone wrote...

Good for them. To me, the Warden comes across like a mindless drone and, at his worst, like a sociopath. (Head canon is no excuse for the utter lack of emotional realism)  Never mind the "Doh!" expression and the O_o expression being all you'll get out of them. My Warden can be "funny" throughout the game, Leliana will still always call her severe. (Just one example) You can be an utter monster, yet spam some gifts and boom, everybody speaks of your honor, kindness, goodness...and forget (!) all the nasty things you did to them or others. Yes, great immersion and roleplaying there.

And so I can be super nasty to all my companions in DA2 but because how rivalry/friendship works, they will stay by my side and respect me?  if you think that is better than gift spam.

Only that's not how that system works in its entirety. I sure lost quite a few companions in several playthroughs. Never mind that each side of the system has its own branch, rather than just ignoring anything you say or do. They REACT to that.

Which means I lose half my companions if I don't want to be either completely in agreement with them or completely at odds with them.  You can be downright abusive to them and they'll stand by you, but try and take a middle stance and they'll abandon you. 

Maybe they like people who take a stand rather than choosing the middle ground or ignoring them. Not all of them abandon you either way. And I've been a peacemaker between the mages and templars in my first playthrough and lost neither Fenris NOR Anders. There is more to it than what you say to them, but also what you DO.

What stand?  The game doesn't allow Hawke to take a stand.  You're forced to help Meredith, forced to help Anders, forced to help Petrice, forced to help the Arishok.  It's impossible to play a Hawke who makes a consistent stand. 

Towards the companions you definitely can, I sure did.

As for the companions not leaving even if you're a total monster:

DAO: I can coldly agree to have a romanced Alistair executed aaaaaaaaaaaand.....not ONE companion even MENTIONS this afterwards. Not even Wynne or Leliana. That's either sloppy or everyone in the party, including the Warden, is a sociopath. Or they have amnesia. <_<

Yet they DO react if Princess Cous Cous gets married. How twisted is that?

[Persephone]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Not being able to keep secrets from our companions is irritating.

I prefer that to them being too obtuse to notice a party member's execution for example. (See my previous post) They talk among themselves, it only makes sense that they'll discuss Hawke, esp. if Varric's there.

[maxernst]

Persephone wrote...

maxernst wrote...

Persephone wrote...

maxernst wrote...

Persephone wrote...

FieryDove wrote...

Persephone wrote...

Good for them. To me, the Warden comes across like a mindless drone and, at his worst, like a sociopath. (Head canon is no excuse for the utter lack of emotional realism)  Never mind the "Doh!" expression and the O_o expression being all you'll get out of them. My Warden can be "funny" throughout the game, Leliana will still always call her severe. (Just one example) You can be an utter monster, yet spam some gifts and boom, everybody speaks of your honor, kindness, goodness...and forget (!) all the nasty things you did to them or others. Yes, great immersion and roleplaying there.

And so I can be super nasty to all my companions in DA2 but because how rivalry/friendship works, they will stay by my side and respect me?  if you think that is better than gift spam.

Only that's not how that system works in its entirety. I sure lost quite a few companions in several playthroughs. Never mind that each side of the system has its own branch, rather than just ignoring anything you say or do. They REACT to that.

Which means I lose half my companions if I don't want to be either completely in agreement with them or completely at odds with them.  You can be downright abusive to them and they'll stand by you, but try and take a middle stance and they'll abandon you. 

Maybe they like people who take a stand rather than choosing the middle ground or ignoring them. Not all of them abandon you either way. And I've been a peacemaker between the mages and templars in my first playthrough and lost neither Fenris NOR Anders. There is more to it than what you say to them, but also what you DO.

What stand?  The game doesn't allow Hawke to take a stand.  You're forced to help Meredith, forced to help Anders, forced to help Petrice, forced to help the Arishok.  It's impossible to play a Hawke who makes a consistent stand. 

Towards the companions you definitely can, I sure did.

As for the companions not leaving even if you're a total monster:

DAO: I can coldly agree to have a romanced Alistair executed aaaaaaaaaaaand.....not ONE companion even MENTIONS this afterwards. Not even Wynne or Leliana. That's either sloppy or everyone in the party, including the Warden, is a sociopath. Or they have amnesia. <_<

Yet they DO react if Princess Cous Cous gets married. How twisted is that?

I think the lack of response to the Landsmeet decisions is sloppy on the part of Bioware.  The quality of DA:O drops off sharply post-Landsmeet in general, but in the case of the Warden, they could think you're a total monster and still want to help you because you're the only one who can stop the Blight.  Hawke doesn't have a cause in DA2 that all the companions agree with. And I can't even take a stand with the companions.  Hawke may be able to, but I can't consistently identify what stance he's going to take from the paraphrasing.

Some time ago somebody suggested that they have an approval/disapproval based on how much they like you and an influence rating based on much they respect you, and that might make sense.  But as it stands it conflates two different concepts, the friendship/rivalry is essentially like the Paragon/Renegade system in ME, only customized for individuals. 

[Sylvius the Mad]

Careful, Max. Quote pyramids are a forum rule violation.

You're a sensible guy with sensible ideas. I wouldn't want to see you hit with a temporary ban.

[Lord Gremlin]

Surprise ruins role-playing. If I want surprises I buy a good action game. They have that. In an RPG I don't want to be surprised by my own character. I think Gothic series got it right. But I prefer silent main character, like in Elder Scrolls.

[esper]

Persephone wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Not being able to keep secrets from our companions is irritating.

I prefer that to them being too obtuse to notice a party member's execution for example. (See my previous post) They talk among themselves, it only makes sense that they'll discuss Hawke, esp. if Varric's there.

I forgot about Varric, now I might even want the bystanders to get more rivalry/friendship if they were left behind, because by the time Fenris hears the story about how Hawke saved a group of mages the group has obviously grown to a 100 mages and Hawke slaughted a 1000 templars to get them free.

On the serious note, in da2 they do discuss Hawke the banter clearly says it and everyone and their mother knows some version of the things Hawke does so it should be reflected in the friendship/rivalry system.