649 réponses à ce sujet

[JakePT]

David Gaider wrote...

Filament wrote...
I know you talk about how people saw rivalry as a penalty and how that was a great misconception about the system, but I don't know if that's really the case (it being a misconception). It can be both an alternate path and a penalty, depending on which path you're trying to achieve. Most people are probably going to go for friendship generally, so getting rivalry points would be a loss for them.

I suspect there's two ways that people play.

For some, they try to imagine where they want the character to end up (ie. "I want Anders at full Friendship") and then try to game all their responses to achieve that end. For others, they pick the responses that are most appropriate to the situation or their character and deal with the consequences as they unfold.

We write with the second playstyle in mind, and that sometimes butts up against the first. Getting a few Rivalry points with Anders is only a problem if you absolutely cannot stand the idea of "falling behind" where you want Anders to end up-- despite the fact that there's plenty of opportunities to do so.

It's possible there's others who just thought "rivalry = bad"... as in "this character doesn't like me, so it must be a bad thing". Complicated by the fact that this was how Origins did it. I mentioned this before, but I don't know how true it is. Just an observation of some responses I've seen.

Regardless, the level of panic some players exhibit at the prospect of getting some unwanted Rivalry points with a character is certainly interesting.

Interesting, because as someone who plays that way I feel that the Rivalry/Friendship points/meter completely undermine that. I feel like the game is constantly judging me and giving me a pass/fail on every decision, rather than things unfolding organically. You removed a morality system, and it worked wonders, but you keep this friendship meter silliness that has all the same problems, if not more.

Modifié par JakePT, 01 mai 2012 - 09:10 .

[Pappi]

You make some very good points. I like anders but I hate that bioware seemed to be trying to make it fangirl-y. It didn't feel like a grownup relationship. I hope it matures if it carries over in DA3

[AkiKishi]

JakePT wrote...

Interesting, because as someone who plays that way I feel that the Rivalry/Friendship points/meter completely undermine that. I feel like the game is constantly judging me and giving me a pass/fail on every decision, rather than things unfolding organically. You removed a morality system, and it worked wonders, but you keep this friendship meter silliness that has all the same problems, if not more.

Some people are compatible some are not. If you play organically you will only ever end up with someone with compatible, or in the case of rivalry, opposite views.

Rivarly/friend points remind me of the time limit in Atelier, it seems like a big deal when you see 99% of the map blank and you have 3 years. But ultimately you can finish the game with a year or more to spare.

[AkiKishi]

Pappi wrote...

You make some very good points. I like anders but I hate that bioware seemed to be trying to make it fangirl-y. It didn't feel like a grownup relationship. I hope it matures if it carries over in DA3

I hope not, It's a waste of time putting effort into a potentionally dead character. All this carrying stuff over is more trouble than it's worth. Anders was Hawkes LI not the players after all...

[Dwarva]

Pappi wrote...

You make some very good points. I like anders but I hate that bioware seemed to be trying to make it fangirl-y. It didn't feel like a grownup relationship. I hope it matures if it carries over in DA3

I think needy relationships where one person is obviously far more into it than the other (which is how the Anders romance came across to me..) can happen at any stage in life. Its far more common in 'high school' relationships but can actually happen anytime. 

Weirdly I've done two Andersmances but can only do it when I'm a mage too. The whining just gets the better of me if I'm not playing a Hawke that agrees 100% with his issues.

[whykikyouwhy]

Filament wrote...

I guess you could argue that the fact that I see "friendship" as the better flavor of friendship than "rivalry" is at least party due to it being that way in Origins (and most other games with companion influence systems I've played), where friendship (high approval) is the only friendship path. And I guess that could be part of it, but the thing is, it's not only a holdover in my own mind, but a holdover in the dialog itself. Sometimes rivalry points do just mean being a jerkass to the companion and being genuinely "unfriendly." And that's part of the issue with rejecting Anders, how brusque the response is. That gives me a sense that at least part of the rivalry gained was due to being a jerk. And that's not what I want. I want to be friendly. Also, the fact that one of the paths is named "friendship," and the other isn't, and they're on opposite ends of a spectrum, naturally leads one into the mindset that it IS a dichotomy, and thus "rivalry" does not involve "friendship" of any sort. So I think it's more complicated as to why I see it as a loss than simply, "because that's how it was before."

With Anders, it's less about actually being a jerkface and more about his momentary perception of you as one. The whole situation in question occurs early in the game and thus early in the grand scheme of any sort of relationship with him (friendship, romance, etc). Really, for me, it correlates to how good intentions go awry - IRL we might try to politely guide someone away from a subject or something we don't want to discuss or address, and that person may interpret that as a rejection (as opposed to a side-step) and react in an emotional manner. It amounts to getting started on the wrong foot. It's a bump in the road, a bit of miscommunication between potential friends and fellow adventurers - and it falls in line with Anders' personality at that point in the game, imo.

When we talk about the perception of rivalry in constrast and comparison to friendship, sure, I can get where it might be viewed as a negative. But there are "rivalry" relationships within the circle of companions themselves that showcase how "rival" need not equate to "enemy." For example, Aveline and Isabela. They're antagonistic with one another - they pick at each other, and with certain issues, they stand on extreme opposites of a debate. But at the core of it, at the strongest point in their relationship, they are steadfast and loyal and would be there in a pinch to back the other up. However, they aren't warm and fuzzy on the surface. In that way, they have a bit of a rivalry relationship - it's a surface with friction, but it's the core that matters.

With regard to Hawke, it boils down (for me at least) to how diametrically opposed (s)he is to the actions or statements of any of the companions. It's about disagreement and that bristley state on the outside.

[Darth Krytie]

I agree with everyone who'd like a "turn em down gently" option. The turn down Anders option is a bit...vehement? I'm not opposed to the rivalry points, but the degree of "not interested" Hawke was in those scenes. Because, my Hawke kinda was interested, but wanted to be with Fenris more. So, yeah, I'd like to say it not so brusquely.

And, for the love of all things holy, let's not have any sort of "hey, baby, wanna bang" tone whenever talking to random companions ala fem!shep and Jacob. I hated that so very much.

[nightscrawl]

David Gaider wrote...

It's possible there's others who just thought "rivalry = bad"... as in "this character doesn't like me, so it must be a bad thing". Complicated by the fact that this was how Origins did it. I mentioned this before, but I don't know how true it is. Just an observation of some responses I've seen.

Regardless, the level of panic some players exhibit at the prospect of getting some unwanted Rivalry points with a character is certainly interesting.

The first couple of times I played the game I played with a pretty constant party of Anders, Fenris, and Varric, answered the way I wanted, and by the end of the game they were all at max friendship. No big deal at all. Anders and Fenris especially had point fluctuations, but there is a lot of opportunity to gain friendship points through the entire game.

This is mainly complicated if your goal is to reach certain milestones in the game at specific times. As an example, I'm able to get Fenris to max (or very close) friendship at the start of Act 2 so that if I desire to I can just start off immediately with Speak to Fenris, then talk to him again for Questioning Beliefs, and then travel somewhere to get a random encounter for Bitter Pill. I do this in order to get all of the romance stuff out of the way. It's also especially useful if I'm trying something new and want to see the different dialogues ASAP.

Regarding "rivalry = bad," there are several reasons for this, some of which I've mentioned in other threads. Part of it is the lack of clear documentation for the game. As various Bioware people have said, forums users only account for a small portion of the players, so it's certainly unfair to expect those non-forum players to then be informed about some mechanic because it was talked about on the forums during DA2 development, or even after release. I remember getting a really fat book with Neverwinter Nights detailing pretty much everything. It even came with a cheat card for some shortcuts. Yes, I know this isn't cost prohibitive with modern games, but clear, comprehensive, FREE documentation should be available online on the official site. In fact, the only explanation I could find in an official sense was on p.6 of the sample PDF of the strategy guide, which we should NOT be expected to buy to understand a game component.

The other issues are basically psychological reactions to the name, color, and imagery. Red is danger, red is bad; blue is light, airy, positive, safe. A rival is an opponent, an antagonist; which are usually negative things, and indeed rival relationships in DA2 can be very antagonistic. The symbol for rival is a red spiky flame-looking object, the symbol for friendship are blue angel wings. It's important to not overlook the impact that symbolism has on people and how it can affect their actions while playing. If symbolism were not important in getting people to react, traffic signs would be white squares with simple words printed on them. You just need to ask your marketing department how important things like color and word choice are.

is clearly a more positive choice than

And as you mention, some of it is reaction to how it was done in DAO. Since there was only one scale in DAO, it's not unreasonable to assume that it might work similarly in DA2, which is further enforced by the above lack of documentation and symbolism for the DA2 system.

Modifié par nightscrawl, 01 mai 2012 - 11:14 .

[nightscrawl]

whykikyouwhy wrote...

For example, Aveline and Isabela. They're antagonistic with one another - they pick at each other, and with certain issues, they stand on extreme opposites of a debate. But at the core of it, at the strongest point in their relationship, they are steadfast and loyal and would be there in a pinch to back the other up. However, they aren't warm and fuzzy on the surface. In that way, they have a bit of a rivalry relationship - it's a surface with friction, but it's the core that matters.

With regard to Hawke, it boils down (for me at least) to how diametrically opposed (s)he is to the actions or statements of any of the companions. It's about disagreement and that bristley state on the outside.

As far as Aveline and Isabela's relationship is concerned, I completely agree. However, that is the only such example in the entire game. Everyone else (I can list them all chart-like if it's required at some later point...) has either a friendly relationship with others (like Varric who is friendly with everyone), or mixed dependent on who the person is. To be honest, if you read all of the party banter, Anders is one of the most caustic people in Hawke's entire crew -- Fenris comes in second if only for the level of viciousness in his remarks to Merrill, although she seems to bring out the worst in him about pretty much every subject.

Regarding Hawke, I would agree, except the game itself isn't designed like that. A rivalry relationship with Anders assumes you are anti-mage, a rivalry relationship with Fenris assumes you are pro-mage, no matter the level of personal interaction you have with these people. I can understand seeing the game in your way, in fact have tried to play as such -- particularly with Anders as I am generally pro-mage, but strongly believe that they need training in order to learn to control themselves -- but the game's mechanics with the dialogue system and F/R don't support it.

Modifié par nightscrawl, 01 mai 2012 - 10:58 .

[Wulfram]

David Gaider wrote...

I suspect there's two ways that people play.

For some, they try to imagine where they want the character to end up (ie. "I want Anders at full Friendship") and then try to game all their responses to achieve that end. For others, they pick the responses that are most appropriate to the situation or their character and deal with the consequences as they unfold.

I'd prefer to play the second way.  But when I do that, I get less content and ultimately at least one of my companions probably ends up trying to kill the PC. 

So I end up playing a compromise - I look for occasions when I can gain the appropriate friend/rivalry points without majorly going out of character, so I can still pick the appropriate choices when it really wouldn't make sense to do otherwise.

We write with the second playstyle in mind, and that sometimes butts up against the first. Getting a few Rivalry points with Anders is only a problem if you absolutely cannot stand the idea of "falling behind" where you want Anders to end up-- despite the fact that there's plenty of opportunities to do so.

There's only plenty of opportunities to do so if you're clearly on one side of the divide otherwise.  If you're Pro-Mage but anti-being possessed then the odds are every point will count with Anders

It's possible there's others who just thought "rivalry = bad"... as in "this character doesn't like me, so it must be a bad thing". Complicated by the fact that this was how Origins did it. I mentioned this before, but I don't know how true it is. Just an observation of some responses I've seen.

Regardless, the level of panic some players exhibit at the prospect of getting some unwanted Rivalry points with a character is certainly interesting.

When 10-15 rivalry points can easily be the difference between having to kill a character or not, I don't think such "panic" is surprising.  Killing one of your party members is about the worst consequence you can get in an RPG, at least for me, so an increased risk of this happening is big.  Far more so than losing out on items, exp or gold.

[FDrage]

Wulfram wrote...

When 10-15 rivalry points can easily be the difference between having to kill a character or not, I don't think such "panic" is surprising.  Killing one of your party members is about the worst consequence you can get in an RPG, at least for me, so an increased risk of this happening is big.  Far more so than losing out on items, exp or gold.

Isabella did the "vanishing" act on me ... and I was kind of "quite a bit surprised". Consequence of my actions probably or the lack of metagaming knowledge. So yes I can understand it, so I wouldn't call it "panic" ... in most games "being neutral" doesn;t do much "good for you" and being a bit between "rivalry" and "friendship" can have the same effect ... in teh end you "lose" out.

in regards to romance .. again more DA:O and less DA2, please

[AkiKishi]

FDrage wrote...

Wulfram wrote...

When 10-15 rivalry points can easily be the difference between having to kill a character or not, I don't think such "panic" is surprising.  Killing one of your party members is about the worst consequence you can get in an RPG, at least for me, so an increased risk of this happening is big.  Far more so than losing out on items, exp or gold.

Isabella did the "vanishing" act on me ... and I was kind of "quite a bit surprised". Consequence of my actions probably or the lack of metagaming knowledge. So yes I can understand it, so I wouldn't call it "panic" ... in most games "being neutral" doesn;t do much "good for you" and being a bit between "rivalry" and "friendship" can have the same effect ... in teh end you "lose" out.

in regards to romance .. again more DA:O and less DA2, please

I think it depends on how in line you are with the characters and NPCs compatibility. Most of the time I'll go for an LI who has a similiar outlook. Engineer Shepard in ME romancing Tali in ME2 was very natural and I never really had to go against type at any point.
Morrigan in DA was a bit different, she reminded me so much of Viconia and had Claudia Blacks voice , she was too good to pass up.She also had very strong ties to the plot. The challenge there was to keep her on board, without sacrificing any core principles.

Stuff happens, I may not like killing Anders ( I did I found him creepy) but thats beside the point. It's part of the how the plot unfolds. Different outcomes will put you in different moods.

[dracuella]

Wulfram wrote...

When 10-15 rivalry points can easily be the difference between having to kill a character or not, I don't think such "panic" is surprising.  Killing one of your party members is about the worst consequence you can get in an RPG, at least for me, so an increased risk of this happening is big.  Far more so than losing out on items, exp or gold.

Very much so! I get attached to my companions, they're my friends and I don't particularly care if I have to miss out on gold or items if it means I can have them by my side till the very end. But that's just the thing; trying to be nice and taking care of your party should not be penalised by lack of content, story or gold. I understand that there are two sides to the Friendship/Rivalry bar and that some incidents are tied to where you are on that scale. But there should be equal amounts on either side of Neutral

[Kahninovre]

In Dao i actually cared about my companions, Da2 i was bored with them by the end

[Wulfram]

To clarify, I don't mind if my PC ends up killing a party member as a logical consequence of the story - it's a big thing to do, but that can make it a compelling story.

But if there's a character I like and my character likes, then I likely don't want to have to end up killing them because of an arbitrary seeming approval system. "And then Fenris decided to kill Hawke, because Hawke had given an elf a job and encouraged his cousin to meet her father" isn't a story I enjoy.

[fuzuoko]

Kahninovre wrote...

In Dao i actually cared about my companions, Da2 i was bored with them by the end

I fall into this camp as well. 

[AkiKishi]

fuzuoko wrote...

Kahninovre wrote...

In Dao i actually cared about my companions, Da2 i was bored with them by the end

I fall into this camp as well. 

Same. Can't really say why that was the case, but like Krikwall itself it was like you had those companions because they were all the game offered.

[Cantina]

David Gaider wrote...

Filament wrote...
I know you talk about how people saw rivalry as a penalty and how that was a great misconception about the system, but I don't know if that's really the case (it being a misconception). It can be both an alternate path and a penalty, depending on which path you're trying to achieve. Most people are probably going to go for friendship generally, so getting rivalry points would be a loss for them.

I suspect there's two ways that people play.

For some, they try to imagine where they want the character to end up (ie. "I want Anders at full Friendship") and then try to game all their responses to achieve that end. For others, they pick the responses that are most appropriate to the situation or their character and deal with the consequences as they unfold.

We write with the second playstyle in mind, and that sometimes butts up against the first. Getting a few Rivalry points with Anders is only a problem if you absolutely cannot stand the idea of "falling behind" where you want Anders to end up-- despite the fact that there's plenty of opportunities to do so.

It's possible there's others who just thought "rivalry = bad"... as in "this character doesn't like me, so it must be a bad thing". Complicated by the fact that this was how Origins did it. I mentioned this before, but I don't know how true it is. Just an observation of some responses I've seen.

Regardless, the level of panic some players exhibit at the prospect of getting some unwanted Rivalry points with a character is certainly interesting.

There is a difference though between Origins and Dragon Age 2. In Origins it did not matter if you pissed of your entire party, they would still help you at the end with the Archdemon (unless you were a big ass and told them to leave). The thing is in Dragon Age 2 the more people you ****** off the less likely they stand by you in the end. I in particular do not want to be fighting Orsino with just my dog or a couple of party members who chose to stay for whatever reason. So I tend to go through the game trying to be friends with them (except for Merill) because I need more bodies for the end game fight. Granted there are ways to get friendship points X times over with party members, but this creates a cramp in who I want in my party.


I recall one conversation with Aveline that I do not agree with their needing another Circle in Kirkwall. She gains rivalry, now I have to load up the game guide on the web and figure out how to get those ten points back and decide if it is worth losing a person in this quest. To avoid that headache I just end up picking the “charming” option from now on.

Sebastian is probably the worst to try to be friends with, I barely make it to the end being friends. I looked up online how to be his Rival, but I would (again) have to remove someone out of my party to make it happen. Then to add just to squeeze in those extra ten points, I have to take him with me on the “Deep Roads” trip part 2 when honestly I would prefer taking someone else. I could have gained rivalry with Sebastian during some of Anders quests, but I prefer to have private conversations with him.

In my opinion, I think what would solve this friendship/rivalry problem is if for every quest you chose to take, each party member in your group will have an opinion on it. This way you can see which quests will give a companion friendship/rivalry but are not limited to only a certain amount of quests in which points are giving to that particular party member.

One thing I did enjoy was the fact if your character is a mage and you first recruit Fenris, you can gain rivalry. I personally would have loved to see this more and even more so in the romance department. OK, so your mage, well, yes you can have a romance with Fenris, but since you are mage, this option is no longer available to you. Same thing goes for Anders, if you are a Templar or Blood Mage, when you first meet him, you gain rivalry and if you want to pursue a relationship with him, well he will not. It all comes down to the choices and the consequences of not only what your character says, but also what they chose to do. I just have a hard time swallowing Fenris wanting to be romantically involved with a mage, much less Anders wanting to be in a romance with a Templar or Blood Mage. Friends, sure, but a romance just makes them come off as hypocrites.

Modifié par Cantina, 01 mai 2012 - 01:02 .

[whykikyouwhy]

Cantina wrote...

There is a difference though between Origins and Dragon Age 2. In Origins it did not matter if you pissed of your entire party, they would still help you at the end with the Archdemon (unless you were a big ass and told them to leave). The thing is in Dragon Age 2 the more people you ****** off the less likely they stand by you in the end.... *snip* ...So I tend to go through the game trying to be friends with them (except for Merill) because I need more bodies for the end game fight. Granted there are ways to get friendship points X times over with party members, but this creates a cramp in who I want in my party.

I'm only quoting a bit of this due to some spoilers...but with regard to the final battle, in DA:O, there was a different big bad. The Archdemon represents something that can, for the most part, be viewed as a common threat to all people of Thedas and beyond. Thus, it's much more understandable, to me at least, to see why people from all walks of life and different roles in society would unite and fight together.

With DA2, the big bad is much more ambiguous. There isn't one grand enemy that is identified at the beginning of the game (which may be a bone of contention for some people). For me, this made the relationships with each of the companions all the richer - they, like folks IRL, are swayed by their convictions. There are certain lines they will not cross, there are certain things they will not do. And I found that I did not mind if I didn't quite get them to stand by my side, that I didn't work to persuade them to Hawke's cause, such as it were. Sure, it stung, but it made me appreciate the writing/development of those companions all the more.

Wanting to build up a party to take with you into the final scenes is just one way of playing. It's certainly not wrong or incorrect, but this falls in line with how individual players have different goals and desires for the progress and outcome of the game. Some folks will look ahead and prepare in that manner, because the expectation is that there will be some climactic battle.

I personally prefer a more organic approach and handled the character interactions based on how I was role-playing Hawke. If that means that I might have fewer folks standing with me on the precipice, well, that's ok. I can only hope that the journey getting there was exciting (and for me, it was).

[wsandista]

David Gaider wrote...

wsandista wrote...
but there needs to be an option to have a conversation to repair the damage your rejection did.

Considering you can get Anders to full Friendship three times over during the course of the game, you have plenty of time to regain any points you think you lost (if, indeed, getting Rivalry can be considered "lost points"... it's a path all of its own, and not a punishment). There's really no need for someone to get anxious because they got some Rivalry points with Anders, outside of a compulsive "must micro-manage every single point gain" mentality I guess.

Or do you mean repair the damage to Anders' feelings, in a more esoteric sense? That's slightly more bizarre territory.

I meant something like the talk you have with Leliana if you leave her for Morrigan, basically something that amounts to a "no hard feelings" chat.  The loss of approval(or gain of rivalry) doesn't really concern me seeing as it is a small loss(or gain if you want to rival the companion in question), that can easily be recouped.

[Dakota Strider]

The DAO system for romances were by far, much better than DA2 for me.  Just imagine replaying any of the DAO LI's, but instead of the multiple options in a conversation, only make your choices based by the icon next to the dialogue    or , or a  and a .  That really increases the excitement doesn't it? (that was sarcasm).  Instead of picking the choice based on the wording of what you felt, you are treated like you are illiterate. 

And I think the DA2 romances would have been much improved if they were treated like DAO, and the player had to go by either instinct or common sense, instead of letting the game hold them by the hand.  Why even bother with printing out the conversations?  They could save some money just by marking everything with icons. 

Also, it would be nice to have some interactions with any of your companions, that are fun/light-hearted, that are not considered to be come-ons flirts.  I recall being able to make some jokes with Alistair, or even give him a hard time about things.  There was nothing like that in DA2.  It seemed to be either entirely quest related, or LI related.  I know you could do that with Varric, but if they were one of the four that were deemed to be the LI's, that option was not available.

Modifié par Dakota Strider, 01 mai 2012 - 01:47 .

[AkiKishi]

Dakota Strider wrote...

The DAO system for romances were by far, much better than DA2 for me.  Just imagine replaying any of the DAO LI's, but instead of the multiple options in a conversation, only make your choices based by the icon next to the dialogue    or , or a  and a .  That really increases the excitement doesn't it? (that was sarcasm).  Instead of picking the choice based on the wording of what you felt, you are treated like you are illiterate. 

And I think the DA2 romances would have been much improved if they were treated like DAO, and the player had to go by either instinct or common sense, instead of letting the game hold them by the hand.  Why even bother with printing out the conversations?  They could save some money just by marking everything with icons. 

Also, it would be nice to some interactions with any of your companions, that are fun/light-hearted, that are not considered to be come-ons flirts.  I recall being able to make some jokes with Alistair, or even give him a hard time about things.  There was nothing like that in DA2.  It seemed to be either entirely quest related, or LI related. 

That might actually work better than paraphrasing since you have no expectation of what will be said, only in the tone of how it is said.

With paraphrasing though, you really need those icons. I mean in ME3 you have "I'll be there for you" when talking to Steve. That just sounds gay, considering who Steve is, so I stopped talking to him. A heart icon would have made it clear whether it was a come on , or just a friend being supportive.

Modifié par BobSmith101, 01 mai 2012 - 01:51 .

[Sutekh]

Dakota Strider wrote...

The DAO system for romances were by far, much better than DA2 for me.  Just imagine replaying any of the DAO LI's, but instead of the multiple options in a conversation, only make your choices based by the icon next to the dialogue 

<snip>

With respect, Dakota, there are no such things as oricons in front of any DA2 dialog. You have as much indication as to what will be the result as you have in DAO.

And given the sheer number of rants I've seen around here regarding "All LIs jump on you" while they do no such thing, I'm afraid the <3 is a necessary evil, if only for disambiguation. That will prevent "ZOMG, Fenris totally ninjamanced my male!Hawke" due to picking a line that was misunderstood. At least, as is, there's no excuse for picking a <3 and then come complaining.

And last, there was plenty of ninjamancing in DAO, partly due to the aforementioned misunderstanding, and without paraphrasing, which is probably why they implemented the <3 thingie in DA2.

[LiquidGrape]

Dakota Strider wrote...

And I think the DA2 romances would have been much improved if they were treated like DAO, and the player had to go by either instinct or common sense, instead of letting the game hold them by the hand.  Why even bother with printing out the conversations?  They could save some money just by marking everything with icons.  

 

The Complete and Comprehensive Guide to DAO Romance:

1. Collect gifts.
2. Impart said gifts onto your prospective loved one who will respond amorously regardless of ethical and/or interpersonal dissonance.
3. Get it on.
4. The End

 Also, it would be nice to have some interactions with any of your companions, that are fun/light-hearted, that are not considered to be come-ons flirts.  I recall being able to make some jokes with Alistair, or even give him a hard time about things.  There was nothing like that in DA2.

Yes there was.
Just don't pick the aforementioned heart options.
I know, it's like they fulfill some kind of actual function or something.

Modifié par LiquidGrape, 01 mai 2012 - 02:41 .