1536 réponses à ce sujet

[n2nw]

David Gaider wrote...

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.

.......

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.

SQUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUEEEEEEEEEEEEEeEEEEEEE!!!

Oooooops....was that out loud?

Maria Caliban wrote...
Jennifer Hepler ......................she's best known for the broodmother introduction with Hespith. The one where Branka turns her lover over to darkspawn to be changed into a mindless abomination. 

Hespith's chanting gave me nightmares for a month.  Thanks for bringing back the pain, Maria.

Modifié par n2nw, 02 avril 2012 - 07:16 .

[Nurot]

Dejajeva wrote...

I can see your point about no. 4. The rivalmance with Fenris I think is the best in game. I enjoy a little heat. And I guess it is a fantasy, and nobody is forcing you to romance anyone.  Epic is good. Epic is very very good- I want epic. But I want the LOVE to be Epic, not the issues of the character I'm romancing. I want the love between my character and my chosen LI to be able to surmount obstacles. And if the love cant do that- I want my character to feel it and realize that she's never going to change that person and that in their case love isn't enough. That realization alone is pretty powerful. I think that could have worked with Anders, but mostly we fangirls would have complained to no end that we weren't given a happy ending.

Some of the most powerful love stories don't have happy endings.  Casablanca. Gone with the Wind. I could go on and on. Buffy & Angel. Sam & Diane.

I get your point as well. And I do agree about "having to realise that love isn't enough" would be a powerful ending to a romance. But yeah, too many pissed off fans then, I think. I do think that love can be epic, even when the issues remain as big issues in the relationship. As long as you are not forced to stay together if you have passed a certain point in the game.

[AkiKishi]

the_one_54321 wrote...

David Gaider wrote...
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

David Gaider wrote...
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.

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?

This is not a sarcastic question. I'm wanting to connect dots between these two posts.

I think he means more types. People who liked Fenris mostly liked Anders too so you could have either or and still cover that type.
Merril was the only one I found interesting in DA2. But I like all the ME females except for Ashely.Each one brings something different to the table, or bedroom. Or engine room in Mirandas' case.Tali is by far my favourite , closely followed by Jack.

Modifié par BobSmith101, 02 avril 2012 - 07:21 .

[n2nw]

I liked the fact that you could either lose or keep a relationship (at end game), depending on your actions, such as with Alistair's plotline. I like happy endings and I *want* my happy (or happy-ish) ending, but it's nice to know that it's not set in stone. That said, I don't want to have to kittyfoot [censored it, LOL] around to keep my LI in tow. I want to be able to disagree with someone and let my character be who they are as a person and (within limits of the other person's values) still keep said LI. Some games have made me feel like I had to be a "yes" man in order to stay together. You shouldn't have to agree on *everything*, just the *main* things.

Modifié par n2nw, 02 avril 2012 - 07:22 .

[the_one_54321]

BobSmith101 wrote...
I think he means more types. People who liked Fenris mostly liked Anders too so you could have either or and still cover that type.

More types means more characters means more variables means more writing in general unless each one gets less writing. Which he may or may not have alluded to by saying each character will not get three side quests. So, no multiple story arcs, less individual focus.

The big fat trade off. You gain one thing by losing another.

[AndrahilAdrian]

morrigan

[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.

[the_one_54321]

David Gaider wrote...

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.

That addresses the notion of changing the interaction style, yes? So, fewer major plot requirements and automatically introduced interactions, but more personal interactions with a lesser degree of overstatement.This is the trade-off you were talking about?

But what about the interaction volume? And how that relates to providing different types of romance characters? I can't ask you to write a whole game worth of a story for every character that has a romance, because that's not practical. If I want you to spend more time writing one character, then you have to spend less time writing something else.

Modifié par the_one_54321, 02 avril 2012 - 07:37 .

[Nurot]

David Gaider wrote...

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.

About that first part "This you will get": Yeeesss! I guess DA3 may be a must buy for the romances alone!

I thought that it was good to know when there was a romance talk coming up in DA2, but you are right. It could have been done more subtle than by a quest. It was good that the romance was spaced out in DA2, because I managed to complete Morrigans romance before finishing the first quarter of the game, or something like that. My Alistair romance lasted a little bit longer, but still only about half the game. Of course the King-thing and the marriage prolonged that specific romance a bit. (It is okay to write spoilers for DAO here I hope?). The romances did have a tendency to be finished off very early in the arcs though, in DA2, so maybe some more spacing is needed. I almost always had my LI maxed out on friend/rival early in act 2.

I get what you mean about trade-offs. I don't want less companion quests. They are great and they also flesh out your non LI-companions. But I could take more companion-stuff over other stuff . I was one of the few that did not mind area re-use, if that is what gave us all that good companion-stuff in DA2.

[Nurot]

n2nw wrote...

I liked the fact that you could either lose or keep a relationship (at end game), depending on your actions, such as with Alistair's plotline. I like happy endings and I *want* my happy (or happy-ish) ending, but it's nice to know that it's not set in stone. That said, I don't want to have to kittyfoot [censored it, LOL] around to keep my LI in tow. I want to be able to disagree with someone and let my character be who they are as a person and (within limits of the other person's values) still keep said LI. Some games have made me feel like I had to be a "yes" man in order to stay together. You shouldn't have to agree on *everything*, just the *main* things.

This. I don't want to metagame to keep my LI or companion. But options are good and being able to lose your relationship is good as long as you don't have to (and as long as you don't need to metagame to keep it). I did feel like I had to metagame to keep my companions in DAO and DA2. In DA2, both to get the right amount of Friend/rival in time to keep one or more companions and also to be able to develop my companions (the neutrality hell has been discussed elsewhere though). I don't like losing companions, since companions is an important part of gameplay and not only the story. It is good to have the option to make companions leave you, but it shouldn't be necesary to metagame to keep them around. Ok, I feel like I am repeating myself in this post. Better stop now..

[YooperLaw]

One of the things DAII did better than DA:O was that companions would actually converse with one another outside of the banter walking around town. I'd go see Aveline and Varric would be there wrapping up a conversation with her. Ditto for other companions during the years. Companions seemed to interact with each other more often which was a refreshing change from DA:O where the world seemed to fully revolve around the player as opposed to the player being a part of it. It makes sense for these people to have their own lives and friends after all.

Mass Effect 3 nailed this in the Normandy; in the first two games companion characters would sit in the same exact spots and would have no interaction whatsoever except (very) limited banter when walking around hub worlds. In the third game companions moved around the Normandy after missions having conversations with one another or at the very least talking via a communicator in their "default" spots. How great it was looking for Tali down in Engineering when instead she was in the lounge getting drunk, or finding Garrus not in the main battery, but shooting the breeze with Joker up in the cockpit. If the next DA project can do that with companions I think you're on the right track (in my opinion anyway).

Modifié par YooperLaw, 02 avril 2012 - 07:50 .

[AkiKishi]

Nurot wrote...

n2nw wrote...

I liked the fact that you could either lose or keep a relationship (at end game), depending on your actions, such as with Alistair's plotline. I like happy endings and I *want* my happy (or happy-ish) ending, but it's nice to know that it's not set in stone. That said, I don't want to have to kittyfoot [censored it, LOL] around to keep my LI in tow. I want to be able to disagree with someone and let my character be who they are as a person and (within limits of the other person's values) still keep said LI. Some games have made me feel like I had to be a "yes" man in order to stay together. You shouldn't have to agree on *everything*, just the *main* things.

This. I don't want to metagame to keep my LI or companion. But options are good and being able to lose your relationship is good as long as you don't have to (and as long as you don't need to metagame to keep it). I did feel like I had to metagame to keep my companions in DAO and DA2. In DA2, both to get the right amount of Friend/rival in time to keep one or more companions and also to be able to develop my companions (the neutrality hell has been discussed elsewhere though). I don't like losing companions, since companions is an important part of gameplay and not only the story. It is good to have the option to make companions leave you, but it shouldn't be necesary to metagame to keep them around. Ok, I feel like I am repeating myself in this post. Better stop now..

What you call meta gaming I call realism. Rivalmance is something a game is never going to pull off though, not without a lot of sex scenes because that's what it comes down to when you fall for someone who hates you as person and vice versa.

[Deviija]

Everyone (romanceable) is bisexual. That is the only real must-have on my personal Wish List. I loved everything about the romances and dialogues in DA:O, just as much as I loved everything about the romances and dialogues in DA2. These aspects in both games were great to me, even if they both do slightly differ in various ways. Ways in which we are discussing above, I notice. If a compromise/merging of the two can be found, I'll still be quite happy.

I did enjoy more companion questlines for each character. It provided a great opportunity for character portraiting and depth, as well as good opportunities for interpersonal drama (moral disagreements, betrayals, arguments, siding with a companion's choice even if it was a Bad Thing -- a la the mirror and Merrill's blood magicy ways). Maybe seeing the romance portion play out a bit more in those scenarios? Or holding a bit more weight in certain dialogue/decisions.

Or perhaps what I'm thinking about is more general. I'd like to see your romanceable companion show more concern and worry for the PC's well-being. If ambushed by blood mages in a quest, the follow-up cinematic with your LI in the party would be nice if they got to supercede the questline dialogue/banters by asking if you're okay/injured. Deathtraps and lethal interactions happen every day in a Hero's life, I know, but having some of the more momentus occassions, the bigger threats, come with some dash of affection/acknowledgement on the side would be nice. One thing I loved most about DA2 was how it utilized companions' skills and abilities and special dialogue moments in conversations where appropriate. Like a mage friend stepping in to help when the (non-mage) PC is getting bamboozled by blood magic mind-control, or Aveline using her power as a Captain and her authority to control a situation/solve a scenario, etc etc. Awesome little things.

Aveline, in general, is a great example of a character progressing through her own goals and ambitions and making her own life choices, while still being a relevant companion in the PC's overall quest, and utilizing her position and authority where appropriate. It never felt like her agency or capabilities had to be toned down in order to not outshine the PC. I rather all the companions (particularly the romanceable ones) come with such agency and equal opportunity in the game, being on somewhat equal footing as the PC, rather than just 'misfit tagalongs to the Messiah Savior that is great at all things all the time.'

[Nurot]

BobSmith101 wrote...

Nurot wrote...

n2nw wrote...

I liked the fact that you could either lose or keep a relationship (at end game), depending on your actions, such as with Alistair's plotline. I like happy endings and I *want* my happy (or happy-ish) ending, but it's nice to know that it's not set in stone. That said, I don't want to have to kittyfoot [censored it, LOL] around to keep my LI in tow. I want to be able to disagree with someone and let my character be who they are as a person and (within limits of the other person's values) still keep said LI. Some games have made me feel like I had to be a "yes" man in order to stay together. You shouldn't have to agree on *everything*, just the *main* things.

This. I don't want to metagame to keep my LI or companion. But options are good and being able to lose your relationship is good as long as you don't have to (and as long as you don't need to metagame to keep it). I did feel like I had to metagame to keep my companions in DAO and DA2. In DA2, both to get the right amount of Friend/rival in time to keep one or more companions and also to be able to develop my companions (the neutrality hell has been discussed elsewhere though). I don't like losing companions, since companions is an important part of gameplay and not only the story. It is good to have the option to make companions leave you, but it shouldn't be necesary to metagame to keep them around. Ok, I feel like I am repeating myself in this post. Better stop now..

What you call meta gaming I call realism. Rivalmance is something a game is never going to pull off though, not without a lot of sex scenes because that's what it comes down to when you fall for someone who hates you as person and vice versa.

To each his own, I guess. I do think that rivalmance is realistic, although probably not the most common type of romance. I base this on observation. Some couples are always arguing and even screaming at each other, but they are still really tight in between fights (and not only through sex). Of course to me, rivalmance and rivalry is not about hating someone as a person, but about disagreeing on certain important issues with that person. In DA2 it is about mages/templars, in real life it is about stuff like what political party you support.

[Nurot]

Deviija wrote...
Or perhaps what I'm thinking about is more general. I'd like to see your romanceable companion show more concern and worry for the PC's well-being. If ambushed by blood mages in a quest, the follow-up cinematic with your LI in the party would be nice if they got to supercede the questline dialogue/banters by asking if you're okay/injured. Deathtraps and lethal interactions happen every day in a Hero's life, I know, but having some of the more momentus occassions, the bigger threats, come with some dash of affection/acknowledgement on the side would be nice.
 

I like this suggestion. It was nice when this happened in MotA, in a party banter.

[n2nw]

Deviija wrote...

Everyone (romanceable) is bisexual.

 
This I'm not so sure about.  I actually like knowing that I *can't* have some people (unless I want to play as another gender/race/type).  I think that makes it more unique.  Though I'll be the first to cry when I can't romance someone as the gender/race/type that I prefer to play (I'm looking at you, ME3's Cortez).  Hrm.  So, maybe we are better off on a "free-for-all" basis.  LOL

Deviija wrote...
I'd like to see your romanceable companion show more concern and worry for the PC's well-being.

I think this has been an issue for romance proponents for years.  I think DA2 took a step in the right direction (and ME3 did, but only with your "friends").  I'd *definitely* like to see more of this and certainly more than a few second cutscene on something major.  I'd also like to see other people talking about it, such as in DA2.  I liked that.  A lot.

Deviija wrote...
.... rather than just 'misfit tagalongs to the Messiah Savior that is great at all things all the time.'

....but....but I *like* being the bestest one.....

Modifié par n2nw, 02 avril 2012 - 08:13 .

[The dead fish]

- Several dialogue options, several paths to get the romance done, and not only one line with an icon of heart.

In DAO I can have different behaviors and lines to charm Morrigan. (Basically nice version, or bad boy version, or even some other things ) in DA2, there is only an icon with heart, a unilateral line, the only way to charm and that didn't please me.

That was really bad. At least two ways to express my feelings with my LI... Even Mass effect does that.

Modifié par Sylvianus, 02 avril 2012 - 08:35 .

[craigdolphin]

David Gaider wrote....

Interesting posts David. As one of those who bent your ear about the issue many months ago, I think I find your posts encouraging in this instance. I'm not 100% convinced this will solve the player agency issue, but I am willing to try to have an open mind about it for da3 and hope it really does bring back the sense of the npc's being more 'real' again. 

I also like the idea of a bit more variety in tone for the various romance options. I really liked Leliana and Morrigan in dao, but felt pretty much uninterested in any of the options in da2. I might have liked Merrill but the new elven look was a major problem for me (she just looked too young and, also, not very attractive IMO) and I never could bring myself to explore that further. Isabela was just not my kinda gal: though she grew on me somewhat. And I'm not interested in male romance options personally. So I felt a little bit let down that way in da2. 

Regardless, I am glad to see that you have been thinking hard about this issue over the last few months. With so many other areas of feedback from similarly voluble fans, I was worried it wouldn't have registered seriously enough to have kept your attention. Very glad to see otherwise.  

[Maria Caliban]

n2nw wrote...

This I'm not so sure about.  I actually like knowing that I *can't* have some people (unless I want to play as another gender/race/type).  I think that makes it more unique.  Though I'll be the first to cry when I can't romance someone as the gender/race/type that I prefer to play (I'm looking at you, ME3's Cortez).  Hrm.  So, maybe we are better off on a "free-for-all" basis.  LOL

You couldn't romance Aveline.

I'd prefer it if romance restrictions were based about personality or ethics.

[Dave of Canada]

I don't approve of the everyone-is-bisexual as it makes the romances play out pretty much identical to the point which the prejudices and such one may face are never confronted, I wouldn't mind the bisexuality thing if gender played some role in the romance.

For example, dating a noble causes their family to disown them because they're old fashioned and want an heir which you cannot provide if same-sex. Creates more drama, adds more reason to explore the romance with another gender rather than view that character's romance as the same identical arc regardless of gender.

That's not to say the drama should only be for same-sex romance, I'd love to see somethings work with same-sex which plagues the straight romance. ****** in everybody's cornflakes equally. ;p

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 02 avril 2012 - 09:04 .

[Uccio]

David Gaider wrote...

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.

I have to say the romance with the fairy elf chick was one of the best I played in games. When my character in BG was informed that she was with child I went for the "defence mode" over her right away. It was a awesome gaming experience.

Modifié par Ukki, 23 avril 2012 - 04:27 .

[NugWrangler]

I would just like at least one of the male love interests to be capable of a healthy relationship. In DA2 Fenris and Anders were both very damaged people and did some pretty unforgivable things to Hawke. The relationship was not one of equals. Even so, I didn't dislike the romances or those characters, but I would really like to have a romance that feels more like a heroic love story,

I'm agreeing with some of the other comments about an Aveline inspired love interest. Someone honorable, loyal, and capable that can be a real partner for the PC. Not someone who needs a therapist or surrogate mother/father.

Modifié par BPearl12, 02 avril 2012 - 08:44 .

[Nurot]

Sylvianus wrote...

- Several dialogue options, several paths to get the romance done, and not only one line with an icon of heart.

In DAO I can have different behaviors and lines to charm Morrigan. (Basically nice version, or bad boy version, or even some other things ) in DA2, there is only an icon with heart, a unilateral line, the only way to charm and that didn't please me.

That was really bad. At least two ways to express my feelings with my LI... Even Mass effect does that.

I like the heart icon, but I wouldn't mind having several options or tones to voe  my LI with. There might have been one or two flirty lines that I would not have chosen if there had been other flirty options around, since I didn't really get them. It might have been a language thing, since I am not a native English speaker. Or maybe not.

[AkiKishi]

If I have to navigate the waters of bisexual characters then I want the heart icons.

[slashthedragon]

BobSmith101 wrote...

If I have to navigate the waters of bisexual characters then I want the heart icons.

*lol*
Maybe there should just be a "let's be friends" option, which once activated with a certain character or characters, makes them unable to be romanced/hit on you.