34 réponses à ce sujet

[deuce985]

Hey all, been playing DA2 past few weeks and just beat it again. A couple things I wanted to talk about and see some other opinions on here.

What did you guys think about DA2's rivalry system and the character interactions between you and each companion? Personally, I'd like to see this expanded in DA3. I thought the framework of what is there is better than the interactions in DA:O. 

I especially loved how Aveline and Isabela constantly show rivalry. The best part is when you try to hook Aveline up for a date. Why don't we see this type of interaction more? I wanted to see my companions jumping into more of my conversations. They all have personalities...surely they don't need to stand around like statues with random one-liners all the time?

Shouldn't a rivalry be built up more? If a companion sees me as a rivalry, shouldn't we see this reflected more in convos? If I go to kill some random NPC and Aveline doesn't approve, I want her to jump between us. Depending on the rivalry check, perhaps it will be a breaking point where she completely opposes me...or she just tries to talk me out of it. Maybe even have my other companion jump into the confrontation if his friendship check is high enough. If I get out of that situation...maybe she'll call me to a private conversation later talking about the incident to mend whatever relationship we have left.

It seems "breaking" points for companions are in very scripted parts. Why not make it more random as the rivalry is built up more through the game? If you consistently take Aveline with you and she rarely agrees with my decisions, I want her to interact more. It may seem harsh having to decide on a companion but they're people too. They have personalities. They shouldn't stand around in convos where I'm being an ass and just give empty stares. It doesn't seem logical when I kill a Mage with Anders in my party and he gives me a simple one-liner with some rivalry points and we're on our way. Especially the way he reacts at the end of the game...

Modifié par deuce985, 07 mai 2012 - 12:07 .

[deuce985]

Nobody has any similar thoughts? Maybe I needed to word it a little better...

Modifié par deuce985, 07 mai 2012 - 06:11 .

[Mark of the Dragon]

I hated DA2 scheduled interactions and so did a lot of other people. I miss the ability to just take a break from the game and talk to companions. They need to fix the companion interaction in general but I preferred DA:O.

[Maria Caliban]

I liked rivalry.
I liked that companion interactions were paced.
I liked that each companion had their own questline.

[Jessihatt]

deuce985 wrote...
Shouldn't a rivalry be built up more? If a companion sees me as a rivalry, shouldn't we see this reflected more in convos? If I go to kill some random NPC and Aveline doesn't approve, I want her to jump between us. Depending on the rivalry check, perhaps it will be a breaking point where she completely opposes me...or she just tries to talk me out of it. Maybe even have my other companion jump into the confrontation if his friendship check is high enough. If I get out of that situation...maybe she'll call me to a private conversation later talking about the incident to mend whatever relationship we have left.

I'd like that, but I'd want that to happen depending on past quests, past alliances, rivalry score, etc. Not scripted to occur during THAT specific quest with THAT specific person.
I wouldn't want it to happen in everyone's game at the same time.

Although that's unlikely to happen  I like the idea though.

[Cantina]

Mark of the Dragon wrote...

I hated DA2 scheduled interactions and so did a lot of other people. I miss the ability to just take a break from the game and talk to companions. They need to fix the companion interaction in general but I preferred DA:O.

So agree with this.

Lets be honest here they needed to fix alot of things in DA2.

[Arppis]

deuce985 wrote...
Shouldn't a rivalry be built up more? If a companion sees me as a rivalry, shouldn't we see this reflected more in convos? If I go to kill some random NPC and Aveline doesn't approve, I want her to jump between us. Depending on the rivalry check, perhaps it will be a breaking point where she completely opposes me...or she just tries to talk me out of it. Maybe even have my other companion jump into the confrontation if his friendship check is high enough. If I get out of that situation...maybe she'll call me to a private conversation later talking about the incident to mend whatever relationship we have left.

Dragon Age Origins had the similar system anyhows and in that game I was just getting max approval score without RPing. I was worried that the characters would just abandon me or something stupid like that.

In DA2 I didn't worry about it too much. So it allowed me to RP bit better. It was the superior system all and all.

[Cantina]

Arppis wrote...

deuce985 wrote...
Shouldn't a rivalry be built up more? If a companion sees me as a rivalry, shouldn't we see this reflected more in convos? If I go to kill some random NPC and Aveline doesn't approve, I want her to jump between us. Depending on the rivalry check, perhaps it will be a breaking point where she completely opposes me...or she just tries to talk me out of it. Maybe even have my other companion jump into the confrontation if his friendship check is high enough. If I get out of that situation...maybe she'll call me to a private conversation later talking about the incident to mend whatever relationship we have left.

Dragon Age Origins had the similar system anyhows and in that game I was just getting max approval score without RPing. I was worried that the characters would just abandon me or something stupid like that.

In DA2 I didn't worry about it too much. So it allowed me to RP bit better. It was the superior system all and all.

I hope that is sarcasium.

[Giltspur]

Certainly I'd like companions to react to my decisions more.  And it needn't necessarily be based on a rivalry/frienship score though I suppose that would add flavor.  For example, if I do something Anders disagrees with I wouldn't want a high friendship to cancel it out.  But a high friendship might cause him to be more diplomatic when he's disagreeing with me.

As for rivalry (not rivalry system...just rivalry) among other party members (Aveline and Isabela), I think that's always been in Bioware games (Viconia vs. Jaheira, Jan vs. anyone, Edwin vs Minsc, Morrigan vs Alistair, Sten vs. Morrigan, Zevran vs Morrigan), but I thought the friendly, evolving rivalry of Aveline and Isabela was on of my favorites in a Bioware game.

Separate topic.  Spreading out the interactions.  

The good: Not everything was upfront waiting to be drained.
More good: New topics could be a result of things that happened since you met them.  (This happened in DAO as well but the DA2 system opens up the chance of it happening more often.)
The bad: When a new topic was there, it was only one new topic.  Feels too streamlined when you can only react to someone else's remarks.  The only way to feel like you're starting a conversation is to have more than one thing to talk about and be able to make a choice about what to start.  Sure it's a bit of illusion, but it still feels more interactive.

Modifié par Giltspur, 07 mai 2012 - 08:18 .

[deuce985]

Giltspur wrote...

Certainly I'd like companions to react to my decisions more.  And it needn't necessarily be based on a rivalry/frienship score though I suppose that would add flavor.  For example, if I do something Anders disagrees with I wouldn't want a high friendship to cancel it out.  But a high friendship might cause him to be more diplomatic when he's disagreeing with me.

As for rivalry (not rivalry system...just rivalry) among other party members (Aveline and Isabela), I think that's always been in Bioware games (Viconia vs. Jaheira, Jan vs. anyone, Edwin vs Minsc, Morrigan vs Alistair, Sten vs. Morrigan, Zevran vs Morrigan), but I thought the friendly, evolving rivalry of Aveline and Isabela was on of my favorites in a Bioware game.

Separate topic.  Spreading out the interactions.  

The good: Not everything was upfront waiting to be drained.
More good: New topics could be a result of things that happened since you met them.  (This happened in DAO as well but the DA2 system opens up the chance of it happening more often.)
The bad: When a new topic was there, it was only one new topic.  Feels too streamlined when you can only react to someone else's remarks.  The only way to feel like you're starting a conversation is to have more than one thing to talk about and be able to make a choice about what to start.  Sure it's a bit of illusion, but it still feels more interactive.

This is exactly what I'm talking about but making it more random. More scenarios happen based on rivalry/friendship checks. A high friendship and Anders is more accepting.

"I don't agree but I've trusted your decisions to this point"

A high rivalry and Anders goes off.

"I've stood by you up to this point even though we've had disagreements but this is going too far"

But maybe extend it out to the other companions in your party too. Say Anders is upset and going off on me based on killing a Mage and Aveline has high friendship rating. Maybe Aveline jumps into the conversation too by trying to talk Anders down.

It may seem harsh but Bioware could give the players many opportunities to mend relationships with the companions. I like relating to Bioware characters. Seeing them interact more and joining in coversations with me is something I really like. They're human(mostly lol), they all have unique personalities. Especially liked how in many scenarios in DA2 you could ask a companion for advice. Like on what to do with Anders at the end of the game.

I understand making more "random" scenarios like that would probably take more dev time and resources up. I just thought it might be a good area to focus on since Bioware is so good at character interactions. I like seeing what is going through the head of my companion when I'm making these decisions throughout the game. If I'm making decisions through my head, shouldn't my companions too? Especially when they're following me halfway around the world? 

Modifié par deuce985, 07 mai 2012 - 08:41 .

[fchopin]

Mark of the Dragon wrote...

I hated DA2 scheduled interactions and so did a lot of other people. I miss the ability to just take a break from the game and talk to companions. They need to fix the companion interaction in general but I preferred DA:O.

[deuce985]

sjpelkessjpeler wrote...

I really really like your idea to have more interaction between PC and companions OP.

When I saw the video of PAX and BW said that there will be more interaction I went 'Yay'!
Question is in what way they will implement it.

My problem with the friendship/rivalry thing was that if you got it to 100% nothing you said or did changed anything. In the case of Fenris with 100% friendship he was a tame little lamb. And in my case I got him at 100% friendship very early in the game.

I hope they will bring back 'the camp fire talk' in that or another form to talk to your companions whenever you want to.

Although the party banter (said it numerous times before) is priceless in DA2. Isabela and Aveline but also Merril and Isabela made me smile a lot with their banter. Only problem with that was when you got info fighting during it the whole thing got lost in there......

The PAX video gave me hope. I did love some interactions in DA2. I thought pacing overall was a bit better in DA2 also. I always bring Isabella and Aveline in my party. I love it. Seemed some characters in DA2 were just better developed overall. I felt Merril, Sebastian and Fenris were a bit generic and you didn't get enough interaction with them. Varric and Aveline were especially developed well, IMO.

I think we'll see party camps come back as we'll probably be traveling around Thedas. Only make sense to have a camp to travel with. I don't know what it is about games that put campfires in but they always seem to relax me...

Sit down by a fire and talk to my companions. Almost feels like rl.

Modifié par deuce985, 07 mai 2012 - 09:17 .

[deuce985]

sjpelkessjpeler wrote...

@deuce985

Yeah, there will be more interaction but BW also stated that in terms of budget choises have to be made. So this is why I wrote 'how they will implement it'. There will likely be something like the camp fire but having companions react to certain decisions ingame/during a quest would be really great. That sort of thing is not likely to happen. To costly I suspect...
But that would REALLY ad to at least my gaming experience.
I liked the way it was used in 'the sacret ashes' quest in DAO. Wynne siding against you if you choose to defile the ashes no matter how high her approval was. And Alistair if you choose to side with Loghain even if he's your LI he will leave. The only thing something like this happens in DA2 is at the end fight with Sebastian and Fenris depending on their friendship level/choise you make as far as I can remember.

Exactly. It makes me feel like more weight are behind my decisions. It makes you feel like everything you do shapes the people closest to you, not just the world.

[deuce985]

sjpelkessjpeler wrote...

There is another thing that would really be awasome (but I suspect this is very costly too); what bothered me in DAO and DA2 was that your companions if you talked to them either at camp our in their home they were always on the same spot. In DAO it was always the same spot in camp, in DA2 for some (like Aveline) it depended on where you were in the game. You never saw them wandering around in their home/campfire. Looking for them seems more natural.

Although I liked the questlines for the companions in DA2 they had one big constriction for me: you needed a certain amount of rivalry or friendship to trigger them. This can be argued to be senseble but it does not feel natural to me to find a message 'questioning believes' at a that point to go to my companion to get some other conversation/companion quest then when you talk to them before that. It seems/feels abrubt.

That's something I'd like see changed too. It happened in ME3 where you saw the crew move around the Normandy/Citadel and interact. That's something DA3 could borrow. I do believe David Gaider said we might be seeing more of this in DA3. Finding a middle ground where you can talk to the companions when you want but also interacting with them as they move around to different areas.

Modifié par deuce985, 07 mai 2012 - 11:40 .

[Dakota Strider]

Something I would like to see is that companions that are unwilling to join you, or will leave you, if you follow role play paths that they do not agree with.

This would require several things to change.

1) Reduce the amount of gifts that can be given. One specific gift for each companion should be available that will help trigger a romance. A second gift should be available to help repair a bad rivalry score, if the PC wants to make up with a companion that has left (basically an apology, and requires the PC to behave as this companion thinks is right.) Having more gifts than that is a bit too frivolous, and the principles of your companions should not be so easily bought.

2) Would require a larger pool of companions to choose from Not all companions will agree with each other, and it should be impossible to please them all. Just having a certain companion in your group of friends, may cause one or more other companions to take severe rivalry penalties, and perhaps want to leave. This is good, because it means that it gives you far more options for replay, that will allow for you to make different choices, that will affect the dynamics of the team you build.

This is something that would require lots of zots (even old dogs like me, can learn new lingo). But it is something that would be similar to how BG2 was, by having so many companions to choose from; and adding that to the DA style of rivalry romance styles, should not be difficult to do. Just lots of zots.

[wsandista]

If they do keep the friendship/rivalry system, they should also have an approval system.
An x-y axis thing should work, F/R can just be personal relationship, while approval will be general approval of the PCs actions.

[Dakota Strider]

resources...time and money

[Dakota Strider]

@sjpelkessjpeler
I understand the reasons behind the two rivalry/gift systems in the two DA games. My thought, is to blend that with an even larger pool of companions, and then make the rivalries even more meaningful, by having some companions choose not to be with you, based on your choices. And regardless of what you choose, you cannot please everyone, and will alienate at least one party member, at key situations.

This does not mean that your choice was wrong, only wrong for that specific companion. And this will allow each new playthrough to be more unique, because you can tailor your choices in each playthrough to try to appeal to different party members. A game that is replayed more often, would generally be considered to be more popular, and therefore lead to more sales. And more sales will justify in the investment of the resources to create more possible companions with more possible roleplay paths.

[Most Definitely Sane]

I liked character interactions, and I love rivalry, but I believe they both need to be expanded.

Character dialogue does need to be paced, but not as widespread as in Dragon Age 2 or Mass Effect 3. I personally feel that a discussion after every other mainquest would be good, but that depends on the amount of mainquests.

As for rivalry, they ought to do two bars. One for friendship/rivalry and one for approval/disapproval.
Approval can be rated on decisions according to their morality, not political/ religious views.
Friendship and rivalry can be based on that.