One of the major downsides I've heard about Dragon Age II's friendship/rivalry system (which imo was a vast, vast improvement from DA:O's approval system) is that a lot of people assumed that rivalry points were a bad thing which got me on to the line of thinking that maybe they shouldn't be coloured in red which got me to thinking why we need them at all. Mass Effect works fine without giving you a number to quantify your friendship with squadmates (I get that Dragon Age's friendships probably have more depth to them but still).
I don't think you need an on-screen thing to tell you whether a character approves or disapproves when the way they react does that just fine. Also I don't like having on-screen notifications telling me stuff I can't tell from their reactions (If you've played The Walking Dead game there's an option to turn off those things telling you how character feel about your actions which I did straight away), for example when there's characters like Varric, Isabela, Zevran or Sten whose motivations and opinions of the PC are harder to read then being told exactly how they feel takes away from the immersion a little bit. Like you shouldn't be able to tell whether a character likes you 74 or a character dislikes you 36. (I know you could say the same thing about stats or whatever but it's easier for the Warden/Hawke to know that they're stronger/more agile/better at magic than before (represented by a two point gain in the menu, than the Warden knowing that Sten likes him 5 more after giving him a cake).
You'd also get less complaints about being "forced" into romances because players are too busy playing to maximise friendship points instead of making the choices they would if they didn't get -10 approval points. The way I see it is that this will only hurt people who meta-game and that isn't how you should be playing these games IMO
Sorry if this has been brought up before or I'm rambling. I'm really tired right now
Why does friendship need to be represented by a number?
Débuté par
SUMpTHY
, mai 18 2012 10:45
Retour en haut
#2
Posté 19 mai 2012 - 02:44
MichaelStuart
-
- Members
- 2 251 messages
I prefer Mass Effect 2's system for gaining friendship.
#3
Posté 19 mai 2012 - 03:11
Rorschachinstein
-
- Members
- 882 messages
MichaelStuart wrote...
I prefer Mass Effect 2's system for gaining friendship.
That's a bit lazy
#4
Guest_Puddi III_*
Posté 19 mai 2012 - 03:58
Guest_Puddi III_*
Guest_Puddi III_*
-
- Guests
Just throwing ideas around-- I wonder if they could "simplify" the way metering works as a way to allow more complexity in the type of metering. Like, for instance, DG says having a double meter system would be too complex because you'd have to account for all of the variable relationships represented by different levels of one meter versus another. So what if, instead of each meter being any integer from 0 to 100 (or -100 to 100), it worked with a sort of "dominant leaning" system, where if you push them a bit in one direction, they're effectively fully in that direction unless you persistently push them in the opposite direction? Then the devs would only really have four relationship states that they'd need to account for, which is more than F/R's two, but I think would make a lot more sense in terms of what points are actually given for, if one meter is for approval/disapproval and one is for support/rivalry. Overall progression of the relationship need not be tied to the fullness of the meter, but progression of the story in general.
#6
Posté 19 mai 2012 - 08:28
JustifiablyDefenestrated
-
- Members
- 77 messages
I think it would be hard to implement another system for measuring relationships; it's much simpler to "quantify" a relationship than to "qualify" it. In other words, it's much less complex to keep track of interactions via an overarching point-system than to assign specific flags for specific dialogue choices, and then to make new dialogue options reflect those dialogue choices. The way I envision it, attempting to create dialogue trees that encompasse multiple conversations would be almost labrynthine--not that I've ever attempted to, so maybe not. In ME, the only thing that really changed up the conversations were plot-decisions and romances--each conversation was its own unit, independent of other conversations (again, disregarding romances). DA2 was a touch more complex than that with the inclusion of Rivalry.
I do like the idea of taking the point-system out of friendship/rivalry, I'm just not sure if there's a better way to represent relationships within the context of a game.
Unless, you're just talking about keeping the point system under the abstraction barrier, which is possible, but could be confusing. Anyway, nice post, it brought up some interesting points
(pun intended)
I do like the idea of taking the point-system out of friendship/rivalry, I'm just not sure if there's a better way to represent relationships within the context of a game.
Unless, you're just talking about keeping the point system under the abstraction barrier, which is possible, but could be confusing. Anyway, nice post, it brought up some interesting points
(pun intended)
Modifié par JustifiablyDefenestrated, 19 mai 2012 - 08:41 .
#7
Guest_simfamUP_*
Posté 19 mai 2012 - 08:34
Guest_simfamUP_*
Guest_simfamUP_*
-
- Guests
It doesn't really bother me to be honest.The same could be said about other things like stats. It's just another easy way to navigate through the game. And it helps if your roleplaying (well it did for me.)
People said Liara was forced on them in ME3. So people will always feel they are being forced on to something. Personally, I think those who say it are just looking for an excuse to complain. But there are some cases where BioWare do force a character on to you...but never on romance/friendship.
You'd also get less complaints about being "forced" into romances because players are too busy playing to maximise friendship points instead of making the choices they would if they didn't get -10 approval points. The way I see it is that this will only hurt people who meta-game and that isn't how you should be playing these games IMO
People said Liara was forced on them in ME3. So people will always feel they are being forced on to something. Personally, I think those who say it are just looking for an excuse to complain. But there are some cases where BioWare do force a character on to you...but never on romance/friendship.
#8
Posté 19 mai 2012 - 09:15
AkiKishi
-
- Members
- 10 898 messages
That's like saying why is damage expressed as a number , or why is armour expressed as a number. The game needs a way to track things.
It's just a case of whether you know what that number is, or if it is hidden, or if it is expressed in some abstract way, like hearts in a Harvest Moon game.
What is really needed is a way to track things in combat (plenty of other games do it) people who you fight well with become a tightly bonded unit. Even if you are not friends.
It's just a case of whether you know what that number is, or if it is hidden, or if it is expressed in some abstract way, like hearts in a Harvest Moon game.
What is really needed is a way to track things in combat (plenty of other games do it) people who you fight well with become a tightly bonded unit. Even if you are not friends.
#9
Posté 19 mai 2012 - 09:54
SUMpTHY
-
- Members
- 71 messages
I'm not saying that the current system needs to be overhauled. I'd just prefer it as a hidden stat, even if turning it off was just an optional thing (like in the aforementioned Walking Dead game and how the number telling you how much damage you did could be turned on and off in DAII). I just think that without it people would be less tempted to metagame and wouldn't treat friendship as just another stat they need to max out and would probably have more fun.
That said, I do like some of the ideas suggested in this topic, adapting the dominant tone for personalities might work. I like the idea for battlefield bond too. Like maybe there'd be a better chance of the AI performing a cross class combo if you use them as a team a lot. Maybe it would punish people who like to vary their party idk.
This is a tangent, but I don't think you should be able to keep on friendly terms with a party member if you keep doing stuff they're dead against just because they're not in the party e.g. you shouldn't be able to get away with constantly abusing mages just because Anders isn't in the party like that should get back to him and make him angry with you if you're friends (like getting back to camp after doing a certain act in DA:O without Leliana or Wynne in the party). Maybe give him less rivalry points than if you'd done it front of him (or maybe more because you'd been buttering him up by pretending to support his cause to his face).
That said, I do like some of the ideas suggested in this topic, adapting the dominant tone for personalities might work. I like the idea for battlefield bond too. Like maybe there'd be a better chance of the AI performing a cross class combo if you use them as a team a lot. Maybe it would punish people who like to vary their party idk.
This is a tangent, but I don't think you should be able to keep on friendly terms with a party member if you keep doing stuff they're dead against just because they're not in the party e.g. you shouldn't be able to get away with constantly abusing mages just because Anders isn't in the party like that should get back to him and make him angry with you if you're friends (like getting back to camp after doing a certain act in DA:O without Leliana or Wynne in the party). Maybe give him less rivalry points than if you'd done it front of him (or maybe more because you'd been buttering him up by pretending to support his cause to his face).
#10
Posté 19 mai 2012 - 11:06
Cyne
-
- Members
- 872 messages
To be honest I thought even mass effect's version was a bit over the top. It's much better when renegade/paragon or whatever variation of those two you have are merged seamlessly into the plot, rather than stick out in the form of colored bars or number notifications. It makes things that occur on the basis of that status much more surprising & fun. I like not knowing exactly how a character feels about me until one day they (for eg.) invite me into their home, or spontaneously start an intimate conversation. Much more organic and real than the points system (being notified I mean; of course the game would need to track them in some way but that need not be apparent to the player).
Modifié par Cyne, 19 mai 2012 - 11:09 .
#11
Posté 19 mai 2012 - 12:55
Reidbynature
-
- Members
- 989 messages
I agree OP. I don't think the red/blue or friendship stats are needed (I'd take away the red/blue impression from the dialogue wheel also). I think the relationships and conversations in general would benefit from just being about which option you chose and not choosing good/bad, red/blue etc.
It's funny you mention the Walking Dead, because since playing the demo I thought the dialogue options system they have would be a better replacement for the dialogue wheel as it doesn't play into the good/bad trap so much (not to mention that what I chose to do actually made a vast difference to what happened lol).
It's funny you mention the Walking Dead, because since playing the demo I thought the dialogue options system they have would be a better replacement for the dialogue wheel as it doesn't play into the good/bad trap so much (not to mention that what I chose to do actually made a vast difference to what happened lol).
#12
Posté 19 mai 2012 - 01:00
Wulfram
-
- Members
- 18 948 messages
A hidden stat would just make it more frustrating. I'd rather learn I've screwed up my relationship with them now, than hours in the future.
#13
Posté 19 mai 2012 - 01:40
Reidbynature
-
- Members
- 989 messages
Wulfram wrote...
A hidden stat would just make it more frustrating. I'd rather learn I've screwed up my relationship with them now, than hours in the future.
So you can reload and do it 'right'? Couldn't you just look online for a walkthrough for the way you want to play the game? Besides I don't think they mean a hidden stat so much as that the relationships flow naturally from conversation and aren't tied to a good/bad friend/rival system.
#14
Posté 19 mai 2012 - 01:41
Fast Jimmy
-
- Members
- 17 939 messages
I think a meter that tracks two attributes, Respect and Approval, could be a solution. DA2 tried to accomplish a way for a companion to dislike everything about you, but still respect you as a powerful individual.
However, in reality, if you abused, mistreated and name-called your companions, they still viewed you as someone they respected, with no real reason.
I think there should be an Approval scale, like in DA:O, where if you say, do or imply the wrong things, the companion will overall dislike you (or vice versa). Then, doing things like side quests, or doing actions which garner their RESPECT (versus something they inherently like) will gain more points.
That way, we can have a companion who truly hates our PC, but also shows that they have done much to earn their respect. Or you can have a companion who genuinely likes the PC as a friend, but honestly does not respect them or see much worth in their actions.
If the total of these two scores got too low, it would cause the companion to leave (just as it did in DA;O). That way the companion would have to REALLY respect you if, say, you tried to sell them into slavery, instead of leaving the party and attacking you. Or a companion would have to REALLY approve of you and all the nice things you say to avoid them leaving the party if you decide to repeatedly take the path of least resistance in the main quest and shirk your responsibility.
Just a thought. As the leader/boss of the party, it is almost like being a manager, where you can try to be everyone's friend, or you cna play the hard line and make sure everyone respects your authority, or some combination in-between. After all, a rivalry can only happen when the two parties view themselves as equals.
However, in reality, if you abused, mistreated and name-called your companions, they still viewed you as someone they respected, with no real reason.
I think there should be an Approval scale, like in DA:O, where if you say, do or imply the wrong things, the companion will overall dislike you (or vice versa). Then, doing things like side quests, or doing actions which garner their RESPECT (versus something they inherently like) will gain more points.
That way, we can have a companion who truly hates our PC, but also shows that they have done much to earn their respect. Or you can have a companion who genuinely likes the PC as a friend, but honestly does not respect them or see much worth in their actions.
If the total of these two scores got too low, it would cause the companion to leave (just as it did in DA;O). That way the companion would have to REALLY respect you if, say, you tried to sell them into slavery, instead of leaving the party and attacking you. Or a companion would have to REALLY approve of you and all the nice things you say to avoid them leaving the party if you decide to repeatedly take the path of least resistance in the main quest and shirk your responsibility.
Just a thought. As the leader/boss of the party, it is almost like being a manager, where you can try to be everyone's friend, or you cna play the hard line and make sure everyone respects your authority, or some combination in-between. After all, a rivalry can only happen when the two parties view themselves as equals.
#15
Posté 19 mai 2012 - 01:50
MichaelStuart
-
- Members
- 2 251 messages
Rorschachinstein wrote...
MichaelStuart wrote...
I prefer Mass Effect 2's system for gaining friendship.
That's a bit lazy
What I mean is that I don't you should get someones frendship/rivalry just because you do a lot of little things like gift giving or how you speak to them. I think that helping/hindering a character duing there presonal quests should matter more.
#16
Posté 19 mai 2012 - 01:56
AkiKishi
-
- Members
- 10 898 messages
Reidbynature wrote...
Wulfram wrote...
A hidden stat would just make it more frustrating. I'd rather learn I've screwed up my relationship with them now, than hours in the future.
So you can reload and do it 'right'? Couldn't you just look online for a walkthrough for the way you want to play the game? Besides I don't think they mean a hidden stat so much as that the relationships flow naturally from conversation and aren't tied to a good/bad friend/rival system.
Thats fine if you want to replay the game or have the time to waste doing things over again. Which is why they made the systen transparent in the first place. This is especially true of people who are not used to flags or how missing one will change something 40 hours down the line.
#17
Posté 19 mai 2012 - 04:27
Reidbynature
-
- Members
- 989 messages
BobSmith101 wrote...
Reidbynature wrote...
Wulfram wrote...
A hidden stat would just make it more frustrating. I'd rather learn I've screwed up my relationship with them now, than hours in the future.
So you can reload and do it 'right'? Couldn't you just look online for a walkthrough for the way you want to play the game? Besides I don't think they mean a hidden stat so much as that the relationships flow naturally from conversation and aren't tied to a good/bad friend/rival system.
Thats fine if you want to replay the game or have the time to waste doing things over again.
It's a roleplaying game. Half the point is multiple play throughs. We all have some free time to waste, it doesn't necessitate that you need a lot of free time since you can come back to it at your leisure.
If people need to do things a certain way on the first go then they should consult a guide since even the DA2 system wouldn't let them know beforehand what companions wanted to hear. It would say that something has tipped the friend/rival meter one way or the other once it had been said, but the only way to make sure you got all the responses you were looking for is to reload and try the other options (wasting time doing the same thing over and over).
But what I think would be better about a non-stat related companion interaction would be that it would be an opportunity for them to show a better interaction and convey the responses better to the gamer rather than a friendship score related to whatever option you chose.
#18
Posté 19 mai 2012 - 04:43
Wulfram
-
- Members
- 18 948 messages
Reidbynature wrote...
So you can reload and do it 'right'?
More likely, so I can keep an eye out for ways to amend it later. And at least so I have some sort of idea why, and whether, it's going wrong.
edit: And hell, maybe so I can abandon ship on that romance and pick someone who might actually like my PC.
Couldn't you just look online for a walkthrough for the way you want to play the game? Besides I don't think they mean a hidden stat so much as that the relationships flow naturally from conversation and aren't tied to a good/bad friend/rival system.
I'm pretty sure the proposal was to have a hidden system.
Having it flow naturally from conversation is fine in principle, but in practice it means that a lot of things are going to end up being ignored. You're only going to be able to tie it to a couple of key conversations or decision, not the generality of interactions and actions throughout the game.
Modifié par Wulfram, 19 mai 2012 - 04:44 .
#19
Posté 19 mai 2012 - 04:50
SUMpTHY
-
- Members
- 71 messages
Wulfram wrote...
A hidden stat would just make it more frustrating. I'd rather learn I've screwed up my relationship with them now, than hours in the future.
Well I'd hope that they'd make it obvious how the character feels about you (unless the character is hard to read like Sten or sycophantic like Varric, in which case the meter can be immersion breaking imo). It's hard to screw up a relationship with a character in Dragon Age II anway since it either goes towards friendship or rivalry and the only way to stop it advancing is by being very inconsistent with your choices.
Even if you can screw up relationships with characters in Dragon Age III I'd still prefer not to have it told to me by a number. I find RPGs far more enjoyable when you make the decision you feel is right and deal with the consequences of your actions rather than metagaming and worrying about how each decision is going to affect some friendship meter and making all the decisions that max out friendships.
If people feel comfortable with a friendship bar then I imagine it would be easy enough to implement a toggle to hide it for those of us who'd rather not have it there.
Modifié par SUMpTHY, 19 mai 2012 - 04:50 .
#20
Posté 19 mai 2012 - 05:00
Reidbynature
-
- Members
- 989 messages
Wulfram wrote...
More likely, so I can keep an eye out for ways to amend it later. And at least so I have some sort of idea why, and whether, it's going wrong.
You could do that anyway even without a red/blue meter. Look at this way, you say to Fenris "stop being so psychotic and whiny", he reacts pyschoticly and whiny. You think to yourself "he didn't seem to like that" and you wonder if you should try the same tact when talking to him again. I don't see why taking away the meter or friendship score suddenly changes that play style or makes it that much harder.
Wulfram wrote...
I'm pretty sure the proposal was to have a hidden system.
Maybe I misread it then (probably just reading what I want to see in it). I thought it was more to do with it not being about a score or good/evil, but it being more about just choosing a more natural way to converse with your companions.
Wulfram wrote...
Having it flow naturally from conversation is fine in principle, but in practice it means that a lot of things are going to end up being ignored. You're only going to be able to tie it to a couple of key conversations or decision, not the generality of interactions and actions throughout the game.
How on earth did you come to that conclusion? I don't think it changes the nature of conversations if you change how it's checked in game what you did. And ignore what? I'm just not following you here.
Modifié par Reidbynature, 19 mai 2012 - 05:00 .
#21
Posté 19 mai 2012 - 05:09
Wulfram
-
- Members
- 18 948 messages
They can't give you the sort of feedback that you'd get in real life. Not without drastically increasing the amount of dialogue for every character, anyway. Taking away the numbers would leave you groping around in the dark.
Consistency is very likely to screw up your relationship in DA2. Being consistently pro-freedom will screw things up with Fenris, for example.
Consistency is very likely to screw up your relationship in DA2. Being consistently pro-freedom will screw things up with Fenris, for example.
#22
Posté 19 mai 2012 - 05:19
Wulfram
-
- Members
- 18 948 messages
Reidbynature wrote...
You could do that anyway even without a red/blue meter. Look at this way, you say to Fenris "stop being so psychotic and whiny", he reacts pyschoticly and whiny. You think to yourself "he didn't seem to like that" and you wonder if you should try the same tact when talking to him again. I don't see why taking away the meter or friendship score suddenly changes that play style or makes it that much harder.
When they're actually in converation with you, you should hopefully be getting some decent feedback, yes. The issue is all the many decisions where the only feedback you get from them is a +approval.
How do I know that having Merrill along for the "Evil Tomes" quest is giving masses of Rivalry, or that advising my cousin to talk to Gamlen is giving me Friendship with Fenris
How on earth did you come to that conclusion? I don't think it changes the nature of conversations if you change how it's checked in game what you did. And ignore what? I'm just not following you here.
If you've not got a numerical track going on, then there's no real way to take into account all the little decisions that come up along the way. The only way you're going to be able to do the relationship is by branching it of a couple of key conversations and decisions, because you no longer have the ability to track the cumulative affect throughout the game.
In practice, you're going to end up with something like the "hardening" system in DA:O - you get one conversation that matters, a second one to confirm and after that you're on that track for the rest of game. With maybe a few "failure" opportunities built in.
#23
Posté 19 mai 2012 - 05:19
Reidbynature
-
- Members
- 989 messages
Again, not following you. It should be pretty clear if you've upset someone by their reaction. They don't need an extra ten pages just so you understand. There won't be any fumbling if it's done clearly (again, doesn't need extra pages. Just clear, concise dialogue and maybe some appropriate mannerisms). I really don't see how you can think taking away the score system means they must add ten pages of dialogue.
I'm not sure if I entirely agree with you about consistency. Fenris, I agree will be quite temperamental (not why I find him annoying, but it doesn't help). I was fairly consistent with the rest of the companions and that seemed to work out fine enough. Though that feels like half my point, if you take away the score/meter thing then it becomes less about good/bad options and more about what choice you think is the right reaction to the conversation/situation.
I'm not sure if I entirely agree with you about consistency. Fenris, I agree will be quite temperamental (not why I find him annoying, but it doesn't help). I was fairly consistent with the rest of the companions and that seemed to work out fine enough. Though that feels like half my point, if you take away the score/meter thing then it becomes less about good/bad options and more about what choice you think is the right reaction to the conversation/situation.
#24
Posté 19 mai 2012 - 05:24
Nerdage
-
- Members
- 2 467 messages
The only way I could see hiding the approval meter working is if character progression (ie content) wasn't tied to net + or - approval.
I expect most everyone here found themselves picking what they thought a character wanted to hear (or didn't want to hear) in order to meet the Questioning Beliefs thresholds at some point, so how many times might you miss out on a big part of their development if you couldn't see the numbers?
If you could be sure you weren't missing anything by not min-maxing approval (which you really need to see the numbers to do) then it'd be fine, if approval determined how they progress but not whether or not they progress at all they could probably get away with hiding it, otherwise I don't see hiding the bar being all that popular.
I expect most everyone here found themselves picking what they thought a character wanted to hear (or didn't want to hear) in order to meet the Questioning Beliefs thresholds at some point, so how many times might you miss out on a big part of their development if you couldn't see the numbers?
If you could be sure you weren't missing anything by not min-maxing approval (which you really need to see the numbers to do) then it'd be fine, if approval determined how they progress but not whether or not they progress at all they could probably get away with hiding it, otherwise I don't see hiding the bar being all that popular.
#25
Posté 19 mai 2012 - 05:30
Reidbynature
-
- Members
- 989 messages
Wulfram wrote...
When they're actually in converation with you, you should hopefully be getting some decent feedback, yes. The issue is all the many decisions where the only feedback you get from them is a +approval.
How do I know that having Merrill along for the "Evil Tomes" quest is giving masses of Rivalry, or that advising my cousin to talk to Gamlen is giving me Friendship with Fenris
OK, now I get what you're saying. That's something else though, I'm just referring to the conversations/interactions with companions. I already find the plus/minus numbers from companions at certain points a pain in the backside at times. Personally I'd remove those bits unless they participated in a conversation with some other NPC where I could either try and talk to them there or make up for it later (if I felt I needed to). I'm not a fan of -1 from Isabella point for freeing the slave girl or whatever. Those are already poorly explained as it is.
Wulfram wrote...
If you've not got a numerical track going on, then there's no real way to take into account all the little decisions that come up along the way. The only way you're going to be able to do the relationship is by branching it of a couple of key conversations and decisions, because you no longer have the ability to track the cumulative affect throughout the game.
In practice, you're going to end up with something like the "hardening" system in DA:O - you get one conversation that matters, a second one to confirm and after that you're on that track for the rest of game. With maybe a few "failure" opportunities built in.
I just don't agree on that one. The game doesn't suddenly 'forget' what choices you've made or what you said just because it isn't adding up a friendship score anymore. It will still track conversation and actions like it does with anything said or done outside of companion conversations and it will still be able to provide conversations or situations context sensitive to what you did previously.
All they have to do is take out the random plus/minus friendship points (preferably), have you influence your companion through conversations and other interactions and not make about whether they like me or not.
Modifié par Reidbynature, 19 mai 2012 - 05:36 .
