26 réponses à ce sujet

[Dejajeva]

I looked for something similar, but didn't see anything recently.

Thought we could put a list together of some of the things we'd love to see changed or added for companion interactions and LI interactions so it's all in one place.

My Wishes

1. I think this goes without saying, as it's pretty obvious it's a pretty standard desire for most of us on here, but in general more interaction with our companions, like in DAo. Companions in DA2 were great, but I felt like it was very...scheduled. I'd like more backstory and more banter. 

2. More friendship scenes and options. Especially with girls, if you're a girl. For instance, I loved being besties with Isabella, but I felt like the friendship, even with no romance, was still kind of flirty. Would have been cool to have some girl talk, and not just one line about what sex with whoever I'm having sex with is like randomly.

3. More relationships between companions. Love interest relationships. Kind of like Fenris and Isabella, though you really don't see that very much, but it's implied. I think that'd be cool.

4. Love interests/companions without mommy-issues, daddy-issues, mage-issues, slavery-issues, templar-issues, sex-issues, sibling-issues. Listen, I'm all for backstory and deep characters, I mentioned that above. And as much as I love Anders and Fenris the constant. every. damn. conversation. ****ing. got very old very quickly, and sometimes, I just wanted a normal person who didn't have so many issues. Kind of like a male version of Aveline. But the only two normal characters, Aveline and Varric- the ones with the least amount of issues, were non-romanceable.  Sometimes I thought- the sarcastic dwarf with too much chest hair is looking mighty fine right about now.

5. Longer romances. Or at least a longer build up, or maybe a more involved build up. And more letting down flirts more easily. For instance, with Anders...there are like four or five romance scenes. It goes like this:  

Anders "I love you, but you can't love me because I'm very bad for you!"
Hawke "Um...okay, don't be upset!"
Anders "We're going to be together forever! I'll come over later for some nookie."
Hawke "But...what just happened? I mean I kind of dig the hair, but..."
Anders "I know we just had sex for the first time, but can I move in?"
Hawke "What?."
Anders "I love you so much, lets go blow up a Chantry"
Hawke "......"

And to top it off, she doesn't even get a KISS before they all run off to get killed by whoever. I know it's a video game, but even Isabella doesn't move that fast. Oh, well maybe that's a bad example. lol.

Anyway, those are just a few of my wishes for companions and love interests in the next game.

For me, story and companions are what make the game so enjoyable- would love to hear your thoughts.

[David Gaider]

Dejajeva wrote...
1. I think this goes without saying, as it's pretty obvious it's a pretty standard desire for most of us on here, but in general more interaction with our companions, like in DAo. Companions in DA2 were great, but I felt like it was very...scheduled. I'd like more backstory and more banter.

This you will get, I think. It's less about having more interaction (as, in terms of overall volume, DA2 companions actually had as much interaction as DAO companions) but rather how it's presented.

Receiving "quests" to inform the player that there was new dialogue seems like it had the opposite effect of what was intended-- rather than being a convenience, some people saw it as affecting their agency. They no longer felt like they had chosen to speak to the companion, but rather that the companion had chosen to speak with them... so they could only interact with that companion on their terms. So, fair enough. Most likely what we will do is go back to the old method of letting the player initiate dialogues, and keep any telegraphing of a companion's "availability" to something more subtle (like a change in animations).

Part of that is also having interactions with the companion that are completely separate from the scenes-- so, the ability to ask the follower questions and/or have smaller things that the player can choose to do like kiss a romance or joke with them, etc.

While I know the average fan would always vote for more of everything (insert meme with fan shouting "ALL OF THE DIALOGUES!" here), there is a trade off... and it would probably come at the expense of having less of a companion's interaction done via companion quests as was in DA2 (remember that DA2 had three quests per follower, in which a lot of that companion's development occurred, as opposed to DAO which had one short quest at best). So there's a middle ground where the sweet spot exists, hopefully, that we'll be playing with... but ideally, once we get around the necessary changes to presentation, it will allow us to retain the feeling of agency that some were missing while not reverting to DAO's system in entirety along with the issues it had.

[David Gaider]

Maria Caliban wrote...
The eight romances we've had in the DA series have all felt different and I like that. But that also means that they can be very hit and miss.

My experience-- having written many of the romances from BG2 all the way up to DA2-- is that there is no catch-all when it comes to romances. It's a very subjective thing, by it's very nature, and what one person finds unacceptable is completely appealing to another. One person finds them whiny and self-involved, and another finds that same character intriguing. Hence their optional nature.

Insofar as the DA2 romances went, my only personal issue is that the Fenris and Anders romances were a little too close in their general tone-- meaning that the same kind of person was apt to like them both (though this is by no means universal, as with most romances). I'd like to have a little more divergence in the "romance type" in the future.

[David Gaider]

the_one_54321 wrote...
So your hope is that you will be able to provide greater variability and fewer dedicated story arcs? The trade-off, as you put it?

I don't think "greater variability" is the right phrase. It's more optional dialogue and less crit path dialogue.

[Allan Schumacher]

Just curious what others have to think about this.  It is important to note that I'm not the biggest fan of Romances in RPGs, mostly because I find that they just seem kind of off (Sorry David... ).  Usually I come away enjoying them, but it's the other aspects of the writing that a typically really like.

One of my favourite romances, though, came from Planescape: Torment.  Anyone that has played Planescape: Torment can probably understand where I'm coming from (I strongly recommend it.  Some of the best writing in fiction as far as I'm concerned), but I'll describe it a bit for those that may not have played it.


The one I am thinking of is with a succubus named Fall-From-Grace.  I find her a very deep character and a caring and compassionate one to boot, which is interesting because she's a succubus!  The PC and FFG are able to become close, but ultimately the relationship can never be truly consumated given the fact that she's a succubus.  I found it fascinating to have such an interesting character that I feel has such great chemistry with the PC, but ultimately the outcome is tragic because they're never able to express it in a physical way.

I also find it refreshing in that it's unique; most relationships in RPGs tend to have a clearly defined "win condition" of being in the relationship, often portrayed by a scene depicting an intimate encounter.


I think that, in general, a romance like this would probably meet some resistance in a BioWare game based on our game catalogue and how we've done romances, but I thought it'd be interesting to see what BSN's take on it was.

Cheers!

[Allan Schumacher]

Shared wrote...

Well in the ME universe i really liked the romances since it went over several games. You could see the LI grow etc etc. But they should/could have done alot more abot it. Make the interaction mean more. In DA2 i didnt find any of the romances verry good, maybe except Isabella, since you actually have to let her run off/loose her, but she changes and comes back and does something she normally wouldnt (and in my canon she did it for love! nothing else ). In da:o the fem warden/allistar romance when you are human noble i really liked. Because it was "complete", and you had to make some pretty damning sacrifices to make it work.

Isabella is my favourite romance in DA2 as well

But for my taste they should do alot more out of the romances. With more twists and turns, maybe even make you LI become a liability at some point. Im not entierly sure exactly what i would wan't. But i would like it to make a significant impact on your personal story/development in the game.

I'll leave this for David and Co. to decide what's best for future title, but as a fan one concern I have is that unless you make the romance a key theme for the story, spending too much time in it may take away from other elements of the story that might be more important. 

I'm of the opinion that the romances should still be optional, just because I know not everyone is interested in them.  Though I agree... I think it'd be interesting to have a romance where ultimately the player character has just been used.  Kind of like Mal's "wife" from Firefly haha.

[Allan Schumacher]

- Edited to remove ME3 spoiler

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 14 avril 2012 - 05:55 .

[Allan Schumacher]

ModEdit - Quote Deleted due to spoiler

I think this is an important aspect because I find with the relationship stuff especially, the idea of being perceived as fair is probably much more important. I remember this being a huge issue with a lot of people in Baldur's Gate 2, and rightly so.

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 14 avril 2012 - 06:08 .

[Allan Schumacher]

tmp7704 wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

edit: Spoiler removed

Would it also surprise you if people were upset after getting told out of a blue that say, Garrus or Tali died between ME2 and ME3 and so everyone who was hoping to continue the relationship with them was out of luck, simply because the game writer felt like it? Because that's functional equivalent.

edit: not trying to say "you can't do that!" or anything like that, just surprised that you were surprised

This is probably a good point to remind our audience that I'm not the biggest fans of romances and hence likely do not place as much investment into them HAHA.

I would actually be okay with other romances being cut off too (whether through death or otherwise), but I understand that I'm likely unique in that regard.  In fact I probably shouldn't get into writing because I'd probably do awful, awful things (in the eyes of many fans) to romance interests just for my own amusement <.<.  Although not so much to be overtly mean, but because I think that when a game can illicit an emotional response it can be a powerful thing.  I probably would have strongly suggested Tali and Garrus end up sacrificing themselves in some capacity simply because those characters have such a sense of attachment by a lot of the fanbase.  Though I imagine the fan response would be akin to a lynch mob... :innocent:

I guess what I find interesting is that the people responded to Jacob moving on much in the same way that they would had it happened in real life.  I see it more as a good thing though, and hope the writers are at least somewhat flattered that people were invested enough that they could respond that way.  No one really cares what happens to the hated NPC.

My .02



EDIT: Spoilers removed.

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 14 avril 2012 - 06:27 .

[Allan Schumacher]

Ria wrote...

I hope you're still referring to the character and not the ending. In case of the ending I would agree but characters make their own decisions that sometimes might hurt Shepard. I don't think he acted out of character (which would have been the fault of the writer and thus justified criticism). The player can influence the world with her choices, sure, but she shouldn't be able to get everything she wants. Perhaps it's about personal preference. I want my companions to say no to me sometimes. I got really heartbroken over Aveline in DA2 and It was wonderful.

Well put.  I like player agency and reactivity, but I think a game world, and its characters, are more interesting when they seem to make decisions on their own and do not explicitly react to me.  I think it's one thing I particularly liked about how party members in DA2 all kind of had their own places to hang out while in Kirkwall, as well as how the crew seemed to move around in ME3 (on the Citadel and on the Normandy).  It's fun to see Joker and Garrus razzing each other.

As you alluded to earlier, I think getting mad at characters in game is perfectly fine, as long as it's appropriately within context.  I'm not upset at a writer/designer because a character doesn't necessarily bend to my whim, or for putting me in a precarious position where there's no easy way out, no matter how "frustrated" I may feel.  Removing myself from the game, that I'm feeling that emotion is really a compliment.


Cheers!

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 14 avril 2012 - 06:28 .

[Allan Schumacher]

EDIT - Spoiler removed

That's fair feedback.  Perhaps people were more upset that they couldn't respond appropriately, and would have felt better about the situation if they could have responded better in game.

Or, maybe we just need to understand why people enjoy the romance options in game and understand that the setting is still fantasy. That doesn't mean being excessively fan servicey and allowing everyone to be romancable, but recognizing that people have different expectations in video games than they do from reality.

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 14 avril 2012 - 06:35 .

[Allan Schumacher]

Momiji.mii wrote...

Also, when devs quote spoilers or include them in their answers, the possibility of people being spoiled by mistake grows even larger, since many lurkers check out the dev posts even if they don't read through the other topics.

I hope this isn't an unreasonable request.

You're absolutely right and I totally wasn't thinking.  I'm very sorry.

[Allan Schumacher]

MOD UPDATE:

I edited several posts that contained a spoiler in ME3. In some cases I deleted the post outright if it was a quick quip (since leaving several posts that were effectively empty seemed silly).

In the case where a discussion about how future romances could be, I removed the references to the spoiler and let the discussion continue.  If anyone sees that I missed a spoiler please contact me via PM and I will remedy it.  In some situations if I removed a reference, I replaced the reference with something neutral (i.e. if someone discussed a romance with a character named Brian, I replaced Brian with "the character").  I've never really actively moderated before and I hesitated to do this since I felt like putting words in people's mouths, but the alternative was to start deleting posts en masse and I do feel that the general aspects of the discussion in this thread has been positive.  If you have any concerns please let me know via PM.

I tried to contact people that had altered posts via PM as a heads up. Since I brainfarted and didn't clue in that I also shouldn't have discussed them, I accept the responsibility for the slip on behalf of all posters and deeply apologize to anyone that was spoiled in parts of ME3.

Respectfully,

Allan

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 14 avril 2012 - 06:51 .

[Allan Schumacher]

Maria Caliban wrote...

I'd like all the companions to be tied to the plot in some way beyond 'follows the PC.' I think Dragon Age II did this better than DA:O.

Is there an example you can think of?  My best example is PST, but then the plot for those characters WAS following the PC... so it's not a great example.

[David Gaider]

MisanthropePrime wrote...
Frankly, you can't dangle a beautiful woman of amazonian stature in our face and then snatch her away not once, but twice (first by showing us delicious female Kossith concept art, and then not letting us romance Aveline)! I will not stand for it!

Now that just makes me want to keep doing it.

Just my two cents. Hope you guys are still reading this.

I stopped reading most of this about 15 pages ago, but I don't think I was missed. Everyone seems pretty happy to talk amongst themselves. Some of what I have read is... interesting. Typically, what people want for romances is fairly idiosyncratic.

[Allan Schumacher]

I didn't realize Cullen was so popular ahahha

[David Gaider]

LolaLei wrote...
I hope Tallis doesn't come back, it's not that she's a bad character or anything but we've had her in DA2 and she's got her own web series... There's such thing as an overload and for my personally it would feel like she was being forced down our throats.

And I've been left with the impression that, had Tallis been a male character, there'd be far more swooning and talk of how he needs to return as a full romance, etc. etc., from... certain corners of the fanbase.

[David Gaider]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...
IIRC, Felicia Day picked the concept of the character out of many options -- meaning an Elven Ben-Hassrath -- and the actual writing was done by the devs.

That's correct. She wrote Tallis for the webseries, but we wrote Tallis for the DLC-- and the concept was one we came up with, among several from which Felicia chose.

While any character is going to have a certain amount of love/hate coming their way, it really is interesting to watch how gender also plays into it. Watching some of the cries of "Mary Sue!" or the view of Tallis by some as if she were some kind of competitor to the female player has been quite interesting... and neither of those things would be the same if Tallis were male, I'm certain.

Which is not to say that someone should like Tallis if they're not inclined to. The extent to which some of these people will go to try and justify their dislike is, however, rather intriguing. Personally, I think Felicia did a fine job... and since it wasn't her decision to break canon (as much as said canon can be broken, considering it's something people decided was canon based on their perception of Sten's dialogues) I'd hardly blame her for it... though I guess since people like to think of celebrities as arrogant/pampered it's more fun to think that's the case. Nothing could be further from the truth in Felicia's case.

[David Gaider]

VampOrchid wrote...
Hmm male/female. I just found the character felt out of place. I can't put my finger on it. But I wasn't convinced that she was part of the Dragon age world. Loved the series to death and loved that there was a DLC that ppl enjoyed. I just wasn't convinced. I don't know why. I love Felicia Day...Something felt off. Wish I had a better way to explain it.

I think it's because she's the first evidence of a Qunari that breaks out of the Sten mold-- namely humourless, gravelly-voiced giant. It would perhaps have been easier had the first character to do so also been a Kossith, but here we had a character that diverged from the perceived Qunari "norm" in a great many ways... thus some people look at that and think "well that's not a Qunari", when we say "there's more to the Qunari than what you've seen, or even what the Qunari themselves would like to believe."

Possibly people are conditioned to accept the "Star Trek" mold of aliens-- where every planet you visit has one dominant terrain and its aliens have one characteric that is true for every member of that race. Possibly just liked the idea of the Qunari being as utterly uniform as Sten proposed, and took him at his word... and why wouldn't you, until presented with evidence to the contrary? The difference here is that, when the contrary evidence was presented, some people chose to refute the character or the reasons for its existence.... as if us wanting Felicia Day to star in our game overrode all basic sense and convinced us to re-write our own setting just so we could do it. Which smacks of contempt in the same vein as the "Mary Sue" comment (one of those phrases which has practically lost all meaning from over-use), but what can you do?

Not that a male version of Tallis wouldn't have come with his own baggage-- but that's really the point, here.

[David Gaider]

brushyourteeth wrote...
Mr. Gaider, have you ever noticed that the characters that get the most fan-hate are ones that have strong religious convictions?

Yes. Not unexpected, really... particularly on the Internet where your average person is affluent, Western and prone to bias against religious organizations in general. I don't think that's a bad thing, though. Like I've said previously, "fan-hate" is preferable to apathy, when it comes to the basic purpose that such characters serve... and, as far as I can tell, the bar for fans to hate just about any character is pretty darned low.

"What? He dared to talk about his personal problems? What a WHINER."

[Allan Schumacher]

Maybe the icon could indicate how the PC means it, rather than how the character will take it? Some of the flirt dialogue isn't exactly obvious from the paraphrase.

I think that this was always the intent of the icons (to indicate what the PC's intentions were). If people didn't feel that way maybe it wasn't communicated properly in the game?

[David Gaider]

berelinde wrote...
It might be more accurate to say that people dislike characters who consider their personal values to be superior to those others possess, particularly if they seek to impose those values on the PC. The difference is subtle, but very, very important.

Actually, I don't think that's accurate. The only character so far who's felt this way was Sten. Characters like Leliana and Sebastian expressed their thoughts on religion/spirituality but rarely proselytized. In fact, Sebastian was written to go out of his way to be accommodating... and yet it seems that some people have an allergic reaction to even the mention of religious views, and will interpret them as proselytization even when they're not intended as such. Which is good to recognize, I think, and it means that characters that we intend to be broadly sympathetic shouldn't be religious.

Mind you, we don't need all characters to be sympathetic. Some players are just gonna get upset, yo. Let 'em.

Modifié par David Gaider, 25 avril 2012 - 03:08 .

[David Gaider]

Wulfram wrote...
edit:  I'd note that Wynne gets a fair amount of hate, despite not being religious.  Though quite a few people seem to think she is.

That's because any character that makes a suggestion is bossy. Any character that talks about themselves instead of asking about you or being concerned about your feelings is self-centered. Any character that even has problems is whiny (or emo, if they're male). Any character that gets angry about something is a jerk, and if they're objecting to something you did then they're even bigger jerks who deserve to have their heads cut off-- and good riddance.

I once came up with a theory that our most popular characters were those who supported the player unconditionally, and even wrote a character to be deliberately sycophantic just to see if I was right. Turned out I was. There are always exceptions, of course, but by and large players prefer followers who are agreeable, supportive and amusing... and any variation from that will provoke hate in varying degrees.

Which is not a reason to make all followers agreeable, supportive and amusing-- by any means. God, how boring would that be? But that's simply how it is. The PC in a video game is, by their nature, essentially a self-centered adolescent jerk.

[David Gaider]

SamaraDraven wrote...
If contrary characters are hated by default, why is Shale much loved?

Shale, like HK-47, had no internal conflict. They might occasionally insult you, but did so in an amusing fashion, and otherwise never really opposed anything you did. Especially if it was jerkish.

Or Morrigan?

Err... if you think Morrigan is universally loved, you probably haven't seen the "slap Morrigan mod".

Because, you know-- when a woman annoys you they deserve to be slapped. Apparently. <_<

[Mary Kirby]

Maria Caliban wrote...

Actually, I think Thane is an exception to this. I don't recall anyone complaining about his religion or the small prayer Shepard participates in.

Thane's religion has no context. It is the names of a few gods and a few spiritual ideas. We have no idea what the Drell actually do based on these beliefs. We don't know how their ideas about spirituality influence their politics or their society. We don't know how their concept about the duality of the soul and the body affects their system of ethics, how they deal with matters of crime or justice.There's nothing there to judge other than the fact that he believes in gods and an afterlife. Which is pretty innocuous on its own.

You have that context for Andrastianism and the Qun.