17 réponses à ce sujet

[keesio74]

I was not a big fan of the new friendship / rivalry system in DA2. It didn't make much sense. I understand what Bioware was trying to do - how you don't have to agree with everything your companions do to build a strong relationship. But how it was implemented didn't work. I mean the stronger the rivalry, the better the relationship.... how does that work? Think about it, constantly putting down someone is better than staying neutral? I'm sorry, but if you keep insulting someone, I expect their dislike to grow and they are more apt to not be loyal. I liked how I could rivalmance Merrill and give her tough love so that she comes around a bit. But the way to do this is off. You keep doing things Merrill dislikes to make her feel more positively to you? Keep insulting her? hmmm... The more you keep insulting Isabela, the more likely she will be there for you in act 2?

The other thing is the "maxing out". Once you max them out one way or another, they can never change. That does not seem realistic. If someone really loves you and then you start really doing things that they hate, they should naturally start to dislike you. If I help mages for the first 2 acts and get Anders at 100% buddy, then decide Meredith is my gal and back her up, Anders' approval should drop like a rock, regardless if he's been maxed out or not.

Now I was going to make a proposal for DA3 to improve this but I realize that I don't have a good answer. The DA:O system made a little more sense to me but I did dislike how the only way you can get close is to always agree and you could not try to disagree and put them on a better path like you could in DA2. But no way should I want to blatently insult someone just to gain rival points so they will be more loyal to me.

Just curious what ideas some others have on an ideal system?

Modifié par keesio74, 29 avril 2012 - 10:27 .

[ReallyRue]

I prefer the friendship/rivalry system purely because of the way I hated having to suck up to characters in DAO just to get their approval higher. I do think it needs to be improved though. The 'maxing out' thing should be done away with, really. There probably should also be some threshold where the companion just can't stand you any longer and has to leave, like with DAO.

Personally, I think they could do with a couple of separate relationship metres, though I realise that could get complicated. There could be one for respect, similar to friendship/rivalry but replacing friendship and rivalry with more appropriate terms. And then there could be a more personal metre, which assesses whether the companion likes or dislikes the PC personally. If they respect you enough, they'll stay and support you, regardless of your personality. If they neither respect you nor like you personally, they'd leave. I realise that could have it's own flaws too, but I like the idea.

[keesio74]

ReallyRue wrote...

Personally, I think they could do with a couple of separate relationship metres, though I realise that could get complicated.

Yeah I was thinking along this line too. But I think it would get pretty complicated to implement and understand. Hopefully the folks at Bioware figure it out.

[fchopin]

It was very bad in DA2 so i hope they don't use it again.

[Sacred_Fantasy]

keesio74 wrote...
The DA:O system made a little more sense to me but I did dislike how the only way you can get close is to always agree and you could not try to disagree and put them on a better path like you could in DA2.

Trust me. I don't always agree with Morrigan. She disapprove 90% of my dialogue choices and my decision throughout the game. I know people hate bribing the companions with gift. But to me ir's an option to unlock her "Black Grimoire". Once you had "Black Grimore" and kill Flemeth, you don't need to bribe or agree with anything. Your relationship with her is secured, eventhough she tried to dump you later. .. 

I knew she never meant to leave me. It's just her way to conceal her vunerability.

The funny thing is, I had to either agree all the way or disagree all the way with Anders, Fenris and Merril in DA 2. There is no other work-around to fix it like giving gift in DAO. In my case, I don't have the opportunity to put them on better path like you do. My relationship with the companions is constantly neutral on the scale, render friendship/rivalry useless from neutral character's standpoint because it made no difference without max frienship/rivalry.

I don't understand the reason of going for extreme end to unlock character development either through friendship/rivalry/loyalty path. I tend to think diplomatic and staying neutral is the best solution to everyone. It keeps everything balance between morality evil and good, man and woman, harmony and chaos, preservation and evolution/changes,  Ying and Yang etc....   I don't understand the need to be 100% friendship or 100% rivalry just to see character's growth. In reality there is no such thing as %100 friendship. Even the most perfect relationship had it's downside. But that doesn't meant two person stop loving each other as a result. As for 100% rivalry? I can only think of one thing. Hatred. If it's doesn't lead to violence conflict then I don't know what it is.

keesio74 wrote...

Just curious what ideas some others have on an ideal system?

You have asked,  Should "Max out" Friendship/rivalry go away? Yes I think it should. The concept of going extreme end doesn't make sense for some characters. It certainly doesn't fit my character. Therefore I don't think it's fair to alienated someone like me from companions' character development just because of who my character is.

Should there be more option than simple dialogue line conversation and fade-to-black sex scenes? Yes, I believe there should be. Grabbing and Kissing deeply during heated argument between two loving person is another way to express, "I'm sorry. I don't meant to hurt you. Let's make this thing up."

I don't know. I'm not pro in relationship. Just make it realistic. Just consider what normal people do when they're in love, flirting etc... in given situation. Fantasy game is fictionous  but it's not an excuse to lie in the name of art. Realism in relationship is still as important as main plot because we all based on our reality and experience to make sense out of it.


Sacred_Fantasy.   

Modifié par Sacred_Fantasy, 30 avril 2012 - 04:14 .

[hussey 92]

ReallyRue wrote...

I prefer the friendship/rivalry system purely because of the way I hated having to suck up to characters in DAO just to get their approval higher. I do think it needs to be improved though. The 'maxing out' thing should be done away with, really. There probably should also be some threshold where the companion just can't stand you any longer and has to leave, like with DAO.

Personally, I think they could do with a couple of separate relationship metres, though I realise that could get complicated. There could be one for respect, similar to friendship/rivalry but replacing friendship and rivalry with more appropriate terms. And then there could be a more personal metre, which assesses whether the companion likes or dislikes the PC personally. If they respect you enough, they'll stay and support you, regardless of your personality. If they neither respect you nor like you personally, they'd leave. I realise that could have it's own flaws too, but I like the idea.

You also had to suck up to the DA2 companions to get their approval higher.  The only change was that instead of leaving the party they became your "rival".  Which was confusing to me, cause why would they spend the decade following you around if your always a dick to them.

Also in Origins I could persuade companions to take my side or I would just not take them along if I were planning to do things they would disapprove of.  And if I did get some disapproval it wasn't a huge set back, it's just part of the game, you can't win everyone over all the time

[ReallyRue]

hussey 92 wrote...

ReallyRue wrote...

You also had to suck up to the DA2 companions to get their approval higher.  The only change was that instead of leaving the party they became your "rival".  Which was confusing to me, cause why would they spend the decade following you around if your always a dick to them.

Also in Origins I could persuade companions to take my side or I would just not take them along if I were planning to do things they would disapprove of.  And if I did get some disapproval it wasn't a huge set back, it's just part of the game, you can't win everyone over all the time

I didn't get their approval higher, which is what I preferred. I could drag Fenris around as an anti-templar character and he could dislike it all he wanted, but I didn't have to leave him at camp all the time or bring him along and end up with him leaving. I think both relationship systems are far from perfect, but I'd rather have friendship/rivalry.

[keesio74]

ReallyRue wrote...

I could drag Fenris around as an anti-templar character and he could dislike it all he wanted,

But didn't you find it funny that the more dislike you get from him, the more loyal he will be? Basically if you are going to treat someone badly, it pays to treat them really badly instead of a little badly.

[Mmw04014]

Yeah, the friendship/rivalry system was a flawed system replacing another flawed system.

It became too annoying constantly worrying about who I should take on each quest because if you didn't micromanage who you took, it was far too easy to keep the characters in limbo between rivalry and friendship and you end up not getting anywhere with them throughout the game. I also dislike how it was impossible to make someone dislike you. Everyone can argue with you, get mad at you, etc., but it never felt like any of them just hated who you were.

I far preferred the Origins system. Yes, the gifts provided people who opportunity to cheat for approval, but people had the option of not using them. Characters could actually hate you and their disapproval of your actions could lead to fights that could make them leave you. In DA2, they could disapprove of you completely but still stick with you/want to get in your pants.

[Nerdage]

My main complaint about the system (seems like a pretty common one too) is gating character progression by net approval, leaving you trapped in the neutral no man's land if you waver. I'd prefer progression be gated by some other means, like how Mass Effect uses quest progress, and friendship / rivalry was used only to determine how they acted, preferably with a neutral progression too (because sometimes I don't WANT to talk about MAGES!).

Otherwise friendship / rivalry is a pretty good model for it I thought. Not perfect, but then models aren't perfect.

[Vovea]

If you want to stay friends with someone, don't discuss politics or religion. The problem was that those were some of the only subjects you could talk about. I thought Varric's friendship/rivalry worked well because it was based on your personality and not extreme views on Mages or Templars.

[ReallyRue]

keesio74 wrote...

ReallyRue wrote...

I could drag Fenris around as an anti-templar character and he could dislike it all he wanted,

But didn't you find it funny that the more dislike you get from him, the more loyal he will be? Basically if you are going to treat someone badly, it pays to treat them really badly instead of a little badly.

Well, that's where the flaw in the system comes in, but I don't think DAO was better either. However, it's not so much a case of treating him badly, as Hawke following his/her own ideals, and Fenris or whoever else disagreeing with them.

[Rixkey]

The thing is "rival" is not synonymous with "enemy". To be a rival, you have to have some respect for the person in some capacity, otherwise they're just random Joe-blow citizen you don't like/agree with. I kind of preferred the friendship/rivalry meter just because it seemed more realistic, in as far as a game can get right now. The entire reason I'm stalling on starting a new Origins campaign is because I'm tired of having to say the same old thing to each companion, and drag them along to the same quests, because that's the only way to make sure they're effective and that's literally the ONLY way you can have any sort of relationship with them. At least with this system, you can experiment with two completely different relationship paths without worrying about not getting that upgrade.

It definitely has its flaws. Having to worry about maxing out one path is certainly one of them, but anything else might just be a little too complex right now. I would personally prefer more decisions that could cause them to leave you regardless of approval rating (or at least have more places where this might happen before they're at 100% and therefore steadfastly loyal). Like, they're loyal to you regardless of actually agreeing with you UNLESS you do something so completely against their morals or sensibilities that they can't stand to be around you anymore. Take Fenris for example. Maybe they could have done something along the lines of, "if you let [two] slavers get away in Fenris's presence, he ups and leaves (friendship)/tries to kill you (rival)" or something, and if it happens out of his presence and he somehow hears about it then you had better be good at lying through your teeth. Or something. Crisis moments that are actually crisis moments. I don't like characters leaving because of some arbitrary number as opposed to an actual reason.

But that's my opinion. I loved some of the rivalry paths in DA2, and it feels good to sometimes have a character tagging along that may not agree with you but will stick beside you anyway because you're you. That's loyalty. I just would feel better if that loyalty was challenged a little bit more before it because the steadfast 100. It would feel wrong to have Fenris tag along after a friend of slavers. At least with Anders, you have the option of debating Templars with him so it makes more sense why he might put up with you if you're pro-Circle (and I always get the impression he's practicing on you/obsessed with making you see things his way if you're a mage, so him following at your heels nagging the entire rivalry makes sense), but still.

[hussey 92]

^There are many different ways to get companions approval in Origins. You don't have to say the same thing every playthrough.

And DA2 didn't really improve on much, if your trying to get friendship the rivalry points set you back and if your trying to get rivalry the friendship points set you back

[MrsMime]

Personally, I liked the friendship/rivalry system in DA2 better than the approval/disapproval in DA:O. And I didn't mind too much the locking in place at 100%, because I saw it as a safety net. Once I maxed out friendship with Isabela, for example, I could help random people on the street without getting rivalry points, or when maxed out with Aveline I could extort people without getting rivalry points, etc. But I think that was just my laziness: just wanting to be at either full friendship or rivalry and wanting to focus on other stuff instead of maintaining it. Haha.

I like the idea of different bars - respect, maybe fear, and so on - which somebody already mentioned would be difficult to implement.

What if each character had a unique bar? Fenris, for example, might have a "Respect" bar, with loyalty on one end, indifferent in the middle, and spiteful at the other end? I don't know. Something like that, unique to and consistent with the characters, since as somebody said above, it's not so simple that all characters simply love you or hate you.

[keesio74]

Rixkey wrote...

The thing is "rival" is not synonymous with "enemy". To be a rival, you have to have some respect for the person in some capacity, otherwise they're just random Joe-blow citizen you don't like/agree with. 

I agree with this. That being a rival means someone you don't agree with but still respect. But it is the way that they give rival points that is flawed. You get rival points for doing things that are honorable (standing up for your beliefs respectfully), but something that they would disagree with. This is good. What is bad is if you do something that is simply bad or disrespectful and get rival points. For a non-spoiler simple example, In act 3 Anders was doing his pro-mage rant to Meredith and I told him to shut up (literally). I naturally got rival points. But it's not right that Anders would respect me more as a rival by telling him to shut up. There is nothing positive there at all. That is my main complaint. That while a strong rivalry is supposed to mean "respectfully disagree", you can get there by doing completely disrespectful things to the person where in no way should they feel any more loyalty to you

Rixkey wrote...

But that's my opinion. I loved some of the rivalry paths in DA2, and it feels good to sometimes have a character tagging along that may not agree with you but will stick beside you anyway because you're you. That's loyalty.

yeah. Except this rivalry should be gained via respectful disagreements and not something that is actions that are completely against the moral fabric of the character. Gaining Aveline's rivalry by breaking the law to help some mages is fine because while Aveline may dislike you breaking the law, she would respect that you are doing to help others. But gaining rivalry from Aveline because you decide to rob some innocent elves or kill for sport does not work. You are not gaining a respectful rivalry fom her, you are doing things that disgust her and would make her respct you less and be much less loyal

Modifié par keesio74, 01 mai 2012 - 06:22 .

[Rixkey]

keesio74 wrote...

I agree with this. That being a rival means someone you don't agree with but still respect. But it is the way that they give rival points that is flawed. You get rival points for doing things that are honorable (standing up for your beliefs respectfully), but something that they would disagree with. This is good. What is bad is if you do something that is simply bad or disrespectful and get rival points. For a non-spoiler simple example, In act 3 Anders was doing his pro-mage rant to Meredith and I told him to shut up (literally). I naturally got rival points.

When I did that, my Hawke was much nicer about it ("this really isn't the time" rather than the more aggressive, outright disrespectful response my other Hawke gave) but I do agree. One of those is not like the other. Being outright mean and mocking to someone isn't a way to gain respect or loyalty unless the person following is a mindless sychophant. I don't think many people here want mindless sycophants for companions.

But, yes. Pretty much agree with you entirely. I love the idea, but the way it was implemented certainly has its flaws. I'm just hoping the flaws are because it's new and therefore something to be refined with time. If they keep it for the next game, maybe we'll see improvements?