105 réponses à ce sujet

[Dalyaria]

First, I want to say that I do generally like the Bioware RPGs. It is the influence system that I find lacking. I mostly always play the game with an evil group, so this is the perspective here as well.

The three problems are:

1) The system penalizes you for roleplaying your character as you want

In roleplaying games, I want to be able to choose the dialogue choices I want. However, if I do that here, I often get disapproval from the party members. This leads to being unable to get the bonus scores to various stats you get for having high approval scores. Also, you have to compensate by spending money on gifts, which you could spend on equipment otherwise.


2) The system penalizes you for wanting to play as much of the content of the game as possible

Often, the "evil" party members are unhappy for doing "good" quests. Still, there often isn't an alternative evil quest. With an evil party, I feel like I am being forced to refuse many of the quests and thus miss out a lot of the content of the game. Going according to their wishes, I miss the potential equipment and the experience rewards gained from these quests.

What should be understood is that evil and good are not functions of what you do, but instead why. There are often no options at all to talk your choices through with the companions, even with a maximized persuasion score. I should be able to tell the "evil" party members that the good quest is worth doing - not because it's the right thing to do - but because there are potential material / social rewards, which you can use for your own ends. This would set well with both the pragmatic and the "left-hand philosophy" -party members.


3) The apparent lack of consistency

One of the things I hear the evil characters being portrayed is as pragmatists. Their goal is to save the world from the darkspawn, not to help villagers with their minor troubles. I find that by this philosophy, they are dedicating themselves to a higher - immaterial - purpose. Their motive is essentially "good", at least so far as "good" is generally thought out to be. Still, they often like it when I e.g. threaten various villagers. What higher goal does this serve? I guess it could be thought that they dedicate themselves to a "left-hand" philosophy. Might makes right, and others should be able to stand punishment and grow stronger for it. But how does this serve with their goal of saving a falling world from the darkspawn, if they really are pragmatists? Why not try to join with the winning side in the first place? Also, it's worth considering - if the characters really are pragmatists - why are they very happy for receiving material trinkets without any practical use as gifts?

Also, I've understood that once various characters dislike you enough, they are going to attack you. I find that they should first make a realistic assessment of their chances. The survival instinct is the most basic trait for nearly all things alive - do they really feel they have a good chance against you at this point? Considering all what the main character has accomplished, I find this hard to believe. During the course of the main quest, it should become apparent to the various characters that the current path is the right one, especially resulting from various discussions to the motives why you do what you do. If a quest to save the world doesn't make a person to greatly think more of the deeper questions of life, I don't know what will.

I understand that at the moment, various characters are greatly affected if you have sex with them. While I agree that this can be a major occasion for a person, it should not in any case be the way to change the given character's entire moral system.


In conclusion:

I find that all this constantly leads to the lack of suspension of disbelief. I feel like I'm playing a diplomatic meta-game, without consistent solutions (or solutions at all) to the problems. Without a deeper, motive-based influence system, I wish I could just turn the entire thing off and concentrate on actually playing the game and roleplaying my character as I see fit. Currently I see myself trying to find the best dialogue choices for my party members in different conversations, and loading if I get disapproval. This should not be the way the game should be played, but it is indeed what the game encourages you to do.

Modifié par Dalyaria, 30 novembre 2009 - 06:54 .

[Kimberly Shaw]

I ran around with Shale, Zevran and Wynne and I don't think any of them ever gave me a +/- approval for accepting any quest, good/bad/otherwise. I think if you want to be goody goody you leave Morrigan and Sten at home, and if you want to be a rascal leave Alistair and Lel at home?



I guess my neutral characters just didn't mind.



I had a bigger problem with no one reacting to my Blood Magic or be able to give the Blood Magic spec to Wynne with no one saying a thing (least of all Wynne herself).

[GHL_Soul_Reaver]

You can't do what you want because you are the Leader of the party, you have to compromise with the people you are with and by that guide them around and eventually reach your goals.



Some of the characters can only tolerate super sweet thinking and doing stuff, others are more how do you put it directly saying we got something to do and stop fondling around with this or that you are wasting time as well as having a more logic strategic way of thinking than others.



I guess most people can not tolerate people telling them they are wrong and they should rather do something else is what it is all about.



This is a RPG.... not some free form FPS game, big respect for taking your time typing it out and all, but I somewhat disagree in your points.

[SheffSteel]

The system doesn't penalise you. The system allows the other characters to judge your actions. Any penalty you receive is a result of your choices - who to adventure with, who to help, and so on.

Modifié par SheffSteel, 30 novembre 2009 - 06:58 .

[Mnemnosyne]

1 - I feel you're totally wrong on this. The fact that the various party members react differently and uniquely to various situations, approving or disapproving based on their own ideas is a good thing. People will dislike and eventually not follow a leader that makes choices contrary to their ideas of what is right, which means you have to either be aware of their tastes and compromise to allow for them, or you must accept the fact that they will not want to serve you.



2- I think this is a very good point. Being able to talk about the reasons behind your choices - perhaps even in-depth - would be a very nice addition whenever a party member disapproves of what you are doing. Perhaps you will convince them of your point of view. Or perhaps they will think even less of you when you explain your reasoning.



3- Overall I find the characters to be reasonably consistent, although there are some 'durr' moments. Some of Sten's disapproval in the Redcliffe/Urn quest line doesn't make much sense, especially since that quest line is required by the game in order to move on. It would make sense if you had another option, but if he can offer no alternative, why does he disapprove? Other than that, however, they seem pretty consistent as far as I've seen.



Now, if you're playing it as a meta-game and reloading if you get disapproval, you're not really doing it 'right'. Concentrate on giving the answers you feel are most consistent for your character, even if you feel they'd make the other character upset. Of course, if your character is the type that will say whatever they think they should in order to curry favor, do that. But base it on what your opinion of the character you're speaking with is, not a trial-and-error game to see what they like best.

Now, it would be nice to see more options sometimes. Especially [Lie] options specifically meant to show intentionally lying in order to curry favor. But overall I find it reasonably good, and better than many systems in other games.

[yoursystemsucks]

I don't like the influence system much either. Feels so robotic (Alistair likes you 53 much!). The game does give you a few opportunities to defend your choice to your companions, though, which I thought was nice. But that happened rarely (only saw it a couple of times with Sten). A much better, if far more complex, way would be to have the game keep track of specific choices you made that certain companions approve or disapprove of. BG2 is still my favorite by far in terms of party interactions. Probably because you weren't in direct control of it, so it felt like more than just pushing buttons.

[GHL_Soul_Reaver]

well you just need to have the guts to cut through when you want to take a decission finally on what should be done about stuff that is happening in game, sometimes your friends is against it, to bad for them, if they do not want to go by your desire then they can just leave.

[pathenry]

What kills the suspension of disbelief is the fact that you can murder some peasant in cold blood, and watch as "Allastair disapproves -3", but then you can give him a dog bone and a shiny trinket and all is forgiven.

[Cathail]

I think there may be some mistaken assumptions on which characters are evil, if any truly are in this game. Sten most definitely is not evil, he simply places duty and honor above personal gain and compassion. Morrigan is the closest to "evil" in that she places personal gain above all else especially with regards to power but I still wouldn't consider her malignant, just very uncaring and places lower value on life than most. The most malignant character is Avernus though it's never an option to have him in the party.

To expect characters who place value on certain things to go along with you when you violate their values seems to violate the core idea of influence. If you want to play a truly malignant, repugnant anti-social character, don't expect people to stick around long. I'm not saying you shouldn't be able to, but don't expect to keep followers for long.

Modifié par Cathail, 30 novembre 2009 - 07:33 .

[Dalyaria]

Kimberly Shaw wrote...

I ran around with Shale, Zevran and Wynne and I don't think any of them ever gave me a +/- approval for accepting any quest, good/bad/otherwise. I think if you want to be goody goody you leave Morrigan and Sten at home, and if you want to be a rascal leave Alistair and Lel at home?

GHL_Soul_Reaver wrote...

Some of the characters can only tolerate super sweet thinking and doing stuff, others are more how do you put it directly saying we got something to do and stop fondling around with this or that you are wasting time as well as having a more logic strategic way of thinking than others.

Yeah, this is the general idea - playing with an evil group. The problems lie in the results. I have to refuse quests, I cannot explain why those quests are worth doing and the evil characters are not consistent with their (dis)approval. At one point very cold dialogue choices towards good people result in a party member approval, while at other times the very same choices do not affect the given party member at all. I elaborated on this further in my first post.

Kimberly Shaw wrote...

I had a bigger problem with no one reacting to my Blood Magic or be able to give the Blood Magic spec to Wynne with no one saying a thing (least of all Wynne herself).

I completely agree. Making Wynne a blood mage is ridiculous and makes me lose the suspension of disbelief.

GHL_Soul_Reaver wrote...

You can't do what you want because you are the Leader of the party, you have to compromise with the people you are with and by that guide them around and eventually reach your goals.

I guess most people can not tolerate people telling them they are wrong and they should rather do something else is what it is all about.

This is a RPG.... not some free form FPS game, big respect for taking your time typing it out and all, but I somewhat disagree in your points.

Compromising with the people is exactly what I cannot do, as I find myself unable to choose dialogue choices which explain the motives why I do some quests. This is exactly what persuasion should be about. The result is the disapproval of the given party member and me wondering why the game doesn't allow me to have a conversation about it. A proper leader keeps her party happy and motivated.

I do not play FPS games.

SheffSteel wrote...

The system doesn't penalise you. The system allows the other characters to judge your actions. Any penalty you receive is a result of your choices - who to adventure with, who to help, and so on.

Yes the system does penalize me. The penalties are not the result of my actions, but completely the opposite: Being unable to act in a way that would be proper roleplaying of an intelligent, evil character. I am also penalized by being urged - by the system - to stay out of game content, or to lose approval ratings as a result. This leads to further penalties via the game mechanics. Kindly read my post again.

[Cathail]

It's been a while since I played bg2 but my vague recollection was that I didn't particularly like it due to the fact that you had no immediate indication that your actions annoyed one of the characters but I could be misremembering. I agree the da:o system is imperfect but I would object to a system that didn't give some sort of immediate feedback. The gift system isn't near as bad as it's made out to be as it's a diminishing returns system. If you annoy one of the followers enough, you are never going to recover even through gifts.

[Ibian]

Don't really care for this discussion, but do keep in mind that good and evil is in the eye of the beholder.

[thisisme8]

I can believe in Flying dragons and Darkspawn threatening a world called Ferelden where 3D polygon models of Dwarves and Elves run along side-by-side with humans, all speaking the same English language, it's just the fact that I can't make sense of my party that totally pulls me out of the immersion.

1. You have to make up your mind. Roleplay or min/max. You roleplay and make decisions, then live up to it and deal with those decisions. You don't want to miss out on party bonuses? Play for stats instead.

2. I tend to look at the "evil" characters (Morrigan especially) as elitists. Suddenly, they make complete sense. They feel bigger and better than petty humans. Sure they'll save the world, only because they are the only ones who can. Sneer and make fun of the little worms, and don't even think about going out of your way to do something for them. A little mockery and horseplay is amusing though, since they are better than them, after all.

3. See 2.

This is me, and I'm done.

Modifié par thisisme8, 30 novembre 2009 - 07:38 .

[Dalyaria]

yoursystemsucks wrote...

I don't like the influence system much either. Feels so robotic (Alistair likes you 53 much!). The game does give you a few opportunities to defend your choice to your companions, though, which I thought was nice. But that happened rarely (only saw it a couple of times with Sten). A much better, if far more complex, way would be to have the game keep track of specific choices you made that certain companions approve or disapprove of. BG2 is still my favorite by far in terms of party interactions. Probably because you weren't in direct control of it, so it felt like more than just pushing buttons.

I agree. The Witcher did that, if I remember correctly, as well as BG2. I still think that BG2 is probably the best RPG of all time.

pathenry wrote...


What kills the suspension of disbelief is the fact that you can murder some peasant in cold blood, and watch as "Allastair disapproves -3", but then you can give him a dog bone and a shiny trinket and all is forgiven.

I absolutely, completely agree.

Modifié par Dalyaria, 30 novembre 2009 - 07:42 .

[AgenTBC]

What kills the suspension of disbelief is the fact that you can murder some peasant in cold blood, and watch as "Allastair disapproves -3", but then you can give him a dog bone and a shiny trinket and all is forgiven.

Exactly. The problem isn't the influence system means some party members disapprove of some of your actions, it's that they don't disapprove even more. Hey, Alastair, I know you're a tiny bit peeved that I killed that little kid and became a blood mage, but hey have this tattered old pair of pants that my dog dug out of a trash heap. ALL BETTER! Now tell me your life story, soulmate.

That is what kills the suspension of disbelief. There should be more approve/disapprove results in response to your actions. There was clearly no design standard for it: Some quests give influence changes and some don't with no rhyme or reason to which. Get a kiss from a nice girl as a reward for saving her life or whatever? -5 Morrigan! Boff a bunch of hookers? Hey, no problem. And so on.

And the influence changes from gifts should have been reduced by about half.

Modifié par AgenTBC, 30 novembre 2009 - 07:41 .

[SheffSteel]

I read your post again - at least, the first paragraph, which was the only part I responded too. This time it sounded like "I am unhappy because I cannot make a choice without consequences."



Okay, now it's your turn to read my post again.

[bzombo]

Dalyaria wrote...

First, I want to say that I do generally like the Bioware RPGs. It is the influence system that I find lacking. I mostly always play the game with an evil group, so this is the perspective here as well.

The three problems are:

1) The system penalizes you for roleplaying your character as you want

In roleplaying games, I want to be able to choose the dialogue choices I want. However, if I do that here, I often get disapproval from the party members. This leads to being unable to get the bonus scores to various stats you get for having high approval scores. Also, you have to compensate by spending money on gifts, which you could spend on equipment otherwise.


2) The system penalizes you for wanting to play as much of the content of the game as possible

Often, the "evil" party members are unhappy for doing "good" quests. Still, there often isn't an alternative evil quest. With an evil party, I feel like I am being forced to refuse many of the quests and thus miss out a lot of the content of the game. Going according to their wishes, I miss the potential equipment and the experience rewards gained from these quests.

What should be understood is that evil and good are not functions of what you do, but instead why. There are often no options at all to talk your choices through with the companions, even with a maximized persuasion score. I should be able to tell the "evil" party members that the good quest is worth doing - not because it's the right thing to do - but because there are potential material / social rewards, which you can use for your own ends. This would set well with both the pragmatic and the "left-hand philosophy" -party members.


3) The apparent lack of consistency

One of the things I hear the evil characters being portrayed is as pragmatists. Their goal is to save the world from the darkspawn, not to help villagers with their minor troubles. I find that by this philosophy, they are dedicating themselves to a higher - immaterial - purpose. Their motive is essentially "good", at least so far as "good" is generally thought out to be. Still, they often like it when I e.g. threaten various villagers. What higher goal does this serve? I guess it could be thought that they dedicate themselves to a "left-hand" philosophy. Might makes right, and others should be able to stand punishment and grow stronger for it. But how does this serve with their goal of saving a falling world from the darkspawn, if they really are pragmatists? Why not try to join with the winning side in the first place? Also, it's worth considering - if the characters really are pragmatists - why are they very happy for receiving material trinkets without any practical use as gifts?

Also, I've understood that once various characters dislike you enough, they are going to attack you. I find that they should first make a realistic assessment of their chances. The survival instinct is the most basic trait for nearly all things alive - do they really feel they have a good chance against you at this point? Considering all what the main character has accomplished, I find this hard to believe. During the course of the main quest, it should become apparent to the various characters that the current path is the right one, especially resulting from various discussions to the motives why you do what you do. If a quest to save the world doesn't make a person to greatly think more of the deeper questions of life, I don't know what will.

I understand that at the moment, various characters are greatly affected if you have sex with them. While I agree that this can be a major occasion for a person, it should not in any case be the way to change the given character's entire moral system.


In conclusion:

I find that all this constantly leads to the lack of suspension of disbelief. I feel like I'm playing a diplomatic meta-game, without consistent solutions (or solutions at all) to the problems. Without a deeper, motive-based influence system, I wish I could just turn the entire thing off and concentrate on actually playing the game and roleplaying my character as I see fit. Currently I see myself trying to find the best dialogue choices for my party members in different conversations, and loading if I get disapproval. This should not be the way the game should be played, but it is indeed what the game encourages you to do.

being a role playing game, you are playing a role. if you are playing evil, you must expect people to react to you as evil. you pay for your choices in this game. you're going to lose out on quests and npc approval if you want to play evil. good people aren't going to let you be evil so you can do quests. that would be unrealistic.

[UlteriorModem]

Learning to live within the consiquences of your own actions can be a difficult thing.

[AgenTBC]

In fact, contrary to the OPs dumb assertion, I believe 75% of the problems with DAO stem from a conscious decision on Bioware's part to make as much of the game content as possible to as many players as possible in a single playthrough without regard to what kind of character they play or what skills/talents that character has.



Think about it. It's very easy to get high approval from every party member at the same time even if they are never in your party with only 1-2 exceptions. Only very rarely do you open up new dialogue or quest options based upon your attributes or skills. There's like one small unimportant bit of sidequest which requires lockpicking or stealing. The items you get from locked chests or behind locked door is pathetic; ooooh, a crude leather helm! Should I replace my +17 helm of the godslayer with it? Let me think!.



In my tl;dr DAO post-mortem dissection of the game which I am going to post once this forum dies down a little this is my primary hypothesis. The content in DAO isn't too UNaccessible in a single playthrough, it's far, far, far too ACCESSIBLE. Way more content should require certain party members to have been in your party for a long time, the presence of high levels of various skills/talents, or certain attributes to be high.



NWN2 and particularly PST did this pretty well. In DAO you get the same dialogue options whether you are the smartest guy on the planet or dumb as a rock. Rember PST? If your intelligence and wisdom were really, really low you basically couldn't do anything but grunt monosyllables in the dialogue tree. It was AWESOME.

[Dalyaria]

bzombo wrote...


being a role playing game, you are playing a role. if you are playing evil, you must expect people to react to you as evil. you pay for your choices in this game. you're going to lose out on quests and npc approval if you want to play evil. good people aren't going to let you be evil so you can do quests. that would be unrealistic.

Like I said, evil and good are not a function of actions, but a function of motives. You can act in a way that some people see as being morally good for entirely morally evil reasons, and vice versa. One of the problems is that I cannot explain my motives to my party members. 

[Odysseus44]

Maybe the game is not radical enough. It gives you feedback of your companions' satisfaction with you, and a means to increase it dramatically (the gifts).



What would happen if you had none of that, except the remarks your companions might make during dialogues...



At some point, they would confront you, maybe with an ultimatum. Some then would leave, other fight you. Maybe betray you. You could have a chance to bring them back (a sidequest), but there would be a penalty (maybe loss of a unique skill, or some stat point, etc.)



In any case, one of my regrets is that companions never come to blows with one another, however strongly they seem to despise one another.



But no system is perfect, and in DAO things are made clear and quite easy to handle. It just lacks drama. The personal sidequests were particularly disappointing in that regard (and short too).

[Dalyaria]

thisisme8 wrote...



I can believe in Flying dragons and Darkspawn threatening a world called Ferelden where 3D polygon models of Dwarves and Elves run along side-by-side with humans, all speaking the same English language, it's just the fact that I can't make sense of my party that totally pulls me out of the immersion.

Agreed. The world is consistent, while the party interaction isn't.

thisisme8 wrote...



1. You have to make up your mind. Roleplay or min/max. You roleplay and make decisions, then live up to it and deal with those decisions. You don't want to miss out on party bonuses? Play for stats instead.



2. I tend to look at the "evil" characters (Morrigan especially) as elitists. Suddenly, they make complete sense. They feel bigger and better than petty humans. Sure they'll save the world, only because they are the only ones who can. Sneer and make fun of the little worms, and don't even think about going out of your way to do something for them. A little mockery and horseplay is amusing though, since they are better than them, after all.



3. See 2.



This is me, and I'm done.

I agree about point #1. At the moment there are no other choices, because of the lacks of the influence system.



From a purely roleplaying point of view, #2 is good advice. Thank you.

AgenTBC wrote...



In fact, contrary to the OPs dumb assertion

Isn't it nice to begin discussions with a personal insult?

AgenTBC wrote...



, I believe 75% of the problems with DAO stem from a conscious decision on Bioware's part to make as much of the game content as possible to as many players as possible in a single playthrough without regard to what kind of character they play or what skills/talents that character has.



Think about it. It's very easy to get high approval from every party member at the same time even if they are never in your party with only 1-2 exceptions. Only very rarely do you open up new dialogue or quest options based upon your attributes or skills. There's like one small unimportant bit of sidequest which requires lockpicking or stealing. The items you get from locked chests or behind locked door is pathetic; ooooh, a crude leather helm! Should I replace my +17 helm of the godslayer with it? Let me think!.



In my tl;dr DAO post-mortem dissection of the game which I am going to post once this forum dies down a little this is my primary hypothesis. The content in DAO isn't too UNaccessible in a single playthrough, it's far, far, far too ACCESSIBLE. Way more content should require certain party members to have been in your party for a long time, the presence of high levels of various skills/talents, or certain attributes to be high.

So by your system, you would have a game where you could see perhaps 5-10% of the content per playthrough? To play the game "for your money's worth", you would have to play it through 10-20 times. Don't you think it would get, despite the eventual new content, very repetitive?

AgenTBC wrote...



NWN2 and particularly PST did this pretty well. In DAO you get the same dialogue options whether you are the smartest guy on the planet or dumb as a rock. Rember PST? If your intelligence and wisdom were really, really low you basically couldn't do anything but grunt monosyllables in the dialogue tree. It was AWESOME.

PST was an awesome game. However, it was also consistent and - in my opinion - designed to play with a wise / intelligent character.

[Cathail]

Dalyaria wrote...

Like I said, evil and good are not a function of actions, but a function of motives. You can act in a way that some people see as being morally good for entirely morally evil reasons, and vice versa. One of the problems is that I cannot explain my motives to my party members. 

Motives are what make people "good" or "evil", or more accurately make one more or less in-line with any particular persons outlook on life. But it's ones actions that gives people and indication of what your motives are. Explaining your motives to a real person after having done something they object to is just as likely to have no effect. Especially if they have reason to mistrust your explanation.

As several including myself have pointed out already in this discussion, actions beget consequences. My view of your objection is that you want your actions to have no consequences.

[MarloMarlo]

Dalyaria wrote...
In conclusion:

I find that all this constantly leads to the lack of suspension of disbelief. I feel like I'm playing a diplomatic meta-game, without consistent solutions (or solutions at all) to the problems. Without a deeper, motive-based influence system, I wish I could just turn the entire thing off and concentrate on actually playing the game and roleplaying my character as I see fit. Currently I see myself trying to find the best dialogue choices for my party members in different conversations, and loading if I get disapproval. This should not be the way the game should be played, but it is indeed what the game encourages you to do.

Your decisions having consequences is not much of a complaint. I don't see how that's supposed to result in a lack of suspension of disbelief. Is it supposed to be more believable that Morrigan doesn't like you less because you believe something that she thinks is moronic? If you want to make certain decisions, bring people along that are most likely to not oppose those decisions or just deal with the lack of a maximum of +4 to one stat. If you want to be able to tell Sten that Ferelden smells fine, don't cry about lack of suspension of disbelief when he doesn't like what you have to say.
 
Obama can't even convince all of congress to support his healthcare plan. It doesn't matter how persuasive you are if who you're talking to isn't reasonable, has already made up its mind or just doesn't care what you think. Is the game broken for you because your max persuasion skill isn't enough to convince the queen to have a foursome with you, Morrigan and Leliana right at the Landsmeet? How about your inability to use your powers of persuasion to talk the darkspawn back underground where they can learn to make presents for all the children of Ferelden. If there was an option for your character to participate in a darkspawn orgy, is your max persuasion supposed to be able to convince whoever you're romancing -- or anyone, realy -- that what you're doing isn't messed up?

Also, Sten thought I was wasting my time and I told him he was wrong. I asked Morrigan if she would mind it if I enslaved her soul and she reversed her position on a decision I made. That doesn't mean that you can convince them that saving kittens from trees is always going to be worthwhile, but it does mean that, kittens in trees aside, there are opportunities to tell your party members that what you're doing is worth doing.

That said, rest assured that I'll cry tears of sadness over you having to spend 50 copper on a gift. Poor you. Think of all the equipment you could've bought.

Dalyaria wrote...
Like I said, evil and good are not a function of actions, but a function of motives. You can act in a way that some people see as being morally good for entirely morally evil reasons, and vice versa. One of the problems is that I cannot explain my motives to my party members. 

Yes, it's not evil to sell innocent people into slavery if I'm going to use the money to help the poor. And let's all weep for the inability to earn light-side points for raping whoever you want because your motive is to help mitigate the population losses to the blight.

The evil of any action isn't automatically washed away just because your heart is in the right place. And saying that it is isn't necessarily going to convince anyone of that.

Modifié par MarloMarlo, 30 novembre 2009 - 08:41 .

[Dalyaria]

Odysseus44 wrote...

Maybe the game is not radical enough. It gives you feedback of your companions' satisfaction with you, and a means to increase it dramatically (the gifts).

What would happen if you had none of that, except the remarks your companions might make during dialogues...

At some point, they would confront you, maybe with an ultimatum. Some then would leave, other fight you. Maybe betray you. You could have a chance to bring them back (a sidequest), but there would be a penalty (maybe loss of a unique skill, or some stat point, etc.)

I think a system like that would be better. The visible approval / disapproval ratings constantly remind you that you're playing a game, instead of being in a fantasy world full of darkspawn and mages.

Odysseus44 wrote...

In any case, one of my regrets is that companions never come to blows with one another, however strongly they seem to despise one another.

Agreed. This is yet another inconsistency in the party interaction mechanics.

Odysseus44 wrote...

But no system is perfect, and in DAO things are made clear and quite easy to handle. It just lacks drama. The personal sidequests were particularly disappointing in that regard (and short too).

Agreed about no system being perfect. However, one of the purposes of critique is to make the negative qualities visible. Fixing those, the system gets better.