25 réponses à ce sujet

[RogueWriter3201]

Okay folks, this is going to be an old question (considering how long the game's been out) Now, I *just* purchased DAII (at long last) and I played well into the final act only to discover that, well, something didn't feel right. Now, I try to avoid tons of Spoilers before I play a game myself. If I'm really excited for it I might watch some YouTube videos, enough to get a sense of what the game is like. I did this with Dragon Age II. Also, I both played the entire first Act via a friend's copy and, of course, spent time here on the BSN looking at comments (which, of course, lead to almost the entire game being spoiled -but that's fine- )

Right, to the point: Getting to the final act I was blind-sided by the fact that Isabela, basically, screws you, and Kirkwall, over without a second thought and that Fenris's final character quest was, strangely absent. Yes, there was the thing with Anders but I learned that it happens regardless of your relationship with him so whatever. Anyway, looking into walkthrough/character info online it shows that, with Isabela, if you don't have high friendship with her or if you didn't romance her, she splits with the Relic where as if you do she does come back out of guilt just before the duel with the Arishok. As for Fenris, if you don't have him in the party with you not only does the Arishok think just a bit less of you but, on top of that, you can't get his final character quest.

(Pause)

Seriously? In Origins I never had that problem. As long as I talked to everyone at camp, and tossed 'em the occasional gift, they either directed me to their quest or it triggered after a conversation. In Dragon Age 2 it seems dependant on your friendship/rivalry which can really only be effected (at least significantly) by having them in your party for quests, reacting to things and choices. In Origins I had a set and solid party consisting of Shale, Wynne, and Leliana and I *still* experienced all the content in that game. In Dragon Age II it had been my intention to have a party consisting of Aveline, Merrill, and Varic. And it was *awesome.* Didn't even need a healer because I was just laying waste to the swarms of bad guys. Then I get to the end and discover that I was, basically, punished for my preference.

So, long story short (too late) Is this true? Did I miss something? Or does the game, in fact, smack you in the face content/story wise for not dragging other characters with you *just* for the sake of Friendship/Rivalry? 

[robertthebard]

It's not just friendship/rivalry. There is some content in DA:O that you can't get if the party member isn't in party with you, such as Alistair's convo on the way into Redcliffe. I didn't know that you couldn't get Fenris' final quest w/out taking him to meet the Arishok, but I had him with me one time, and the Arishok's responses "I have a growing lack of disgust for you" and "You keep good company" encouraged me to bring him with me. It's just a matter of not triggering a certain event if you don't have them with you.

[RogueWriter3201]

robertthebard wrote...

It's not just friendship/rivalry. There is some content in DA:O that you can't get if the party member isn't in party with you, such as Alistair's convo on the way into Redcliffe. I didn't know that you couldn't get Fenris' final quest w/out taking him to meet the Arishok, but I had him with me one time, and the Arishok's responses "I have a growing lack of disgust for you" and "You keep good company" encouraged me to bring him with me. It's just a matter of not triggering a certain event if you don't have them with you.

Alistair still has that conversation with you even if you don't take him to Redcliff, i.e. "I'm Maric's Son." That's my point. It seems like, with DA2, if you don't take *all* the companions with you and build up your friendship/rivalry some content is closed to you. No ifs, ands, or buts. Origins was never like that with content. Some lines of dialogues/comments/reactions? Yes. But *content*, i.e. character quests and the like? No. It's the reason I inquired if I'm missing something because I can't believe that Mike and David would punish players for things like not taking Fenris everwhere (I really don't like him. Too Emo) or not becoming Friends with Isabela (she's fine, just not someone I want to take along) 

[thats1evildude]

If you don't like or don't use the party members, why do you be-moan their loss?

[robertthebard]

glenboy24 wrote...

robertthebard wrote...

It's not just friendship/rivalry. There is some content in DA:O that you can't get if the party member isn't in party with you, such as Alistair's convo on the way into Redcliffe. I didn't know that you couldn't get Fenris' final quest w/out taking him to meet the Arishok, but I had him with me one time, and the Arishok's responses "I have a growing lack of disgust for you" and "You keep good company" encouraged me to bring him with me. It's just a matter of not triggering a certain event if you don't have them with you.

Alistair still has that conversation with you even if you don't take him to Redcliff, i.e. "I'm Maric's Son." That's my point. It seems like, with DA2, if you don't take *all* the companions with you and build up your friendship/rivalry some content is closed to you. No ifs, ands, or buts. Origins was never like that with content. Some lines of dialogues/comments/reactions? Yes. But *content*, i.e. character quests and the like? No. It's the reason I inquired if I'm missing something because I can't believe that Mike and David would punish players for things like not taking Fenris everwhere (I really don't like him. Too Emo) or not becoming Friends with Isabela (she's fine, just not someone I want to take along) 

The "You caught me in a lie" convo isn't the same as the "You're fixing to find out so I'd better tell you now" convo on the way to Redcliffe.  However, yes, you are required to interact with the companions to get their content going.  Since dialog is extremely limited, one of my pet peeves, the only way to do that is to swap people in and out, unlike in Origins, where you could spend a few hours doing nothing but chatting up companions.  I suppose it does come down to basically the same thing, spending time with them, even if it seems less like spending time than chatting does.

[whykikyouwhy]

glenboy24 wrote...

Alistair still has that conversation with you even if you don't take him to Redcliff, i.e. "I'm Maric's Son." That's my point. It seems like, with DA2, if you don't take *all* the companions with you and build up your friendship/rivalry some content is closed to you. No ifs, ands, or buts. Origins was never like that with content. Some lines of dialogues/comments/reactions? Yes. But *content*, i.e. character quests and the like? No. It's the reason I inquired if I'm missing something because I can't believe that Mike and David would punish players for things like not taking Fenris everwhere (I really don't like him. Too Emo) or not becoming Friends with Isabela (she's fine, just not someone I want to take along) 

I seem to recall that you wouldn't find out about Wynne's spirit possession unless and until your approval level was high enough, and it's only after that revelation that you can acquire the quest "Wynne's Regret." If so, then DA:O had instances of content that was "locked" or unavailable until you met certain critieria centered around the Warden's relationships with the companions.

Modifié par whykikyouwhy, 08 juin 2012 - 05:09 .

[wsandista]

Both had content that was locked until x amount of approval had been reached. DA2 actually had companions leave the party of approval wasn't x at a certain point or if a certain quest wasn't completed quickly enough.

[whykikyouwhy]

wsandista wrote...

Both had content that was locked until x amount of approval had been reached. DA2 actually had companions leave the party of approval wasn't x at a certain point or if a certain quest wasn't completed quickly enough.

I was addressing the OP's point about content within the text I quoted.

DA:O did have instances where party members would openly oppose you however. If certain decisions are made, and/or approval is not high enough, Sten can turn on the Warden in Haven and Leliana will do so if the ashes are defiled. Even if Leliana is not in the party during the ashes quest and any subsequent defilement, she does confront the Warden and will leave unless a persuasion check is made.

While not exactly the same thing, the outcome is similar in DA2. If the PC does not have x conversations or does not rank the friendship/rival levels to y, certain companion quests may be inaccessible, or the companions may leave.

Modifié par whykikyouwhy, 08 juin 2012 - 05:23 .

[TEWR]

So, long story short (too late) Is this true? Did I miss something? Or does the game, in fact, smack you in the face content/story wise for not dragging other characters with you *just* for the sake of Friendship/Rivalry

Think of it as trust* really. If you don't interact with them enough for them to get to know you, how can they trust you with their personal issues?

This is true in real life also. People aren't going to confide in people that they don't really know. Similarly, through more interactions both the PC and the companions can change due to that growing relationship.

Isabela will say, upon returning, that Hawke's influence on her is why she decided to return. It's because at that point, she values Hawke as a friend -- or at least someone she trusts -- and doesn't want him/her to suffer based on her own choices, which have already had a damning effect on Kirkwall.

Fenris, if he trusts you, will confide in you the story of his escape from Danarius. Also, he'll be drunk, which certainly helps things.

============================================================================

*Perhaps that's what Rivalry should be called from now on. Rivalry has, for some players, a distince negative connotation. But perhaps if it were simply called "Trust" or "Respect", that connotation might disappear. Or something that carries both that idea within it -- they trust you/respect you -- but also says that you're challenging their beliefs, without Rivalry being the word.

Because while Rivalry does have that air, it also has a negative air making it seem... bad in some players' minds. Not mine personally, but others.

Additionally, perhaps a different color scheme for Rivalry is in order. Red also has a more malicious air about it, while blue seems to say to some players "Go this way".

Perhaps blue and green? Or maybe Rivalry could be a mix of two colors -- say red and orange -- instead of being just red?

I dunno.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 08 juin 2012 - 05:49 .

[Fallstar]

On the contrary, I prefer companions to give quests/do things/say things on the condition that you have already built your relationship up with them enough. Having your companions be able to significantly influence the story, and you be able to influence them depending on your relationship, is a good thing. I'd far rather that than have companions whose purpose is solely to give you a hand in battle. 

Anders destroying the Chantry; Isabella causing the Qunari conflict; Morrigan saving your Warden (potentially) through the DR; Alistair (potentially) becoming king: all these are examples of how both Origins and DA:2 had companions who have their own wishes and ambitions and who act autonomously. Both games did this excellently and I hope DA:3 continues the trend.

[mousestalker]

Zevran will turn on you if your approval is too low. If it isn't high enough he will leave. Both actions are triggered when Taliesin appears at the top of the stairs.

His romance is buggy in the vanilla version, but if you have the ZDF mod installed then there are things you find out about him depending upon approval and dialogue choices.

[Corker]

Alistair won't tell you about Goldanna if your approval isn't high enough, I think. And Sten won't tell you about his sword. And if you don't keep Leliana in your party, you won't trigger the 'random event' ambush that kicks off her confrontation with Marjolaine. I suspect there may be Approval-based triggers for all their companion quests, actually, although NPCs in Origins were much more bribeable than those in DA2. In fact, players complained about the gifts being overkill and I believe that buying NPCs' love and affection was specifically turned down for DA2.

My understanding is that Isabela will also return with the relic if you have a high enough Rivalry with her; doesn't have to be Friendship.

TEWR wrote...
*Perhaps that's what Rivalry should be called from now on. Rivalry has, for some players, a distince negative connotation. But perhaps if it were simply called "Trust" or "Respect", that connotation might disappear.

Like the pen-and-paper RPG influence meters I've played with, what it really needs is two dimensions. In this case: Affection and Respect. High Affection and High Respect = DA2 Friendship. Low Affection and High Respect = DA2 Rivalry.

But that's two more fields to bookkeep, display, and write triggers for, so I understand why they keep trying for a 1-D solution.

[LadyJaneGrey]

OP, I'm surprised you had trouble with Isabela. My first Hawke was a dual-wielding rogue (who therefore never selected Isabela outside of her quests), and I had no trouble keeping her just by checking in for conversations as in Origins.

[Cutlass Jack]

LadyJaneGrey wrote...

OP, I'm surprised you had trouble with Isabela. My first Hawke was a dual-wielding rogue (who therefore never selected Isabela outside of her quests), and I had no trouble keeping her just by checking in for conversations as in Origins.

This. Also I don't see it as punishment so much as replayability. You can choose who you want your Hawke to bond with (and the nature of those relationships) based on your own character, not theirs.

If your Hawke never takes Isabela around, and never bonds with her, then does it matter if she sticks around or not? And by her leaving, your story unfolds differently than if she stays. And you'll definately see great dialogue you haven't seen before by taking other people around and playing other personalites.

[robertthebard]

Just another note, the perspective seems off to me, as well. You are not being punished for preference in as much as you are not being rewarded for not earning influence with your companions. In Origins, you couldn't swing a dead cat w/out hitting a gift for a companion. Some of the gifts in 2 can bite you in the ass, depending on how you're trying to influence your party member. Trying for Rivalry with Bethany, and still got 30 Friendship points from Birthright, and the resulting gift. Next time I do it, I think I"ll try leaving her at home.

[Dutchess]

What the others already said. You had to have companions in your party in Origins as well to have their quests trigger (Leliana and Wynne).

Oh, and bringing Fenris to the Arishok has absolutely nothing to do with his personal quest trigger. You do have to have him in your party in Act 2 (after completing the quest Blackpowder Curtosy) and travel to a location outside of Kirkwall (so Sundermount or Wounded Coast) to have A Bitter Pill trigger.

[Sacred_Fantasy]

glenboy24 wrote...
Right, to the point: Getting to the final act I was blind-sided by the fact that Isabela, basically, screws you, and Kirkwall, over without a second thought and that Fenris's final character quest was, strangely absent. Yes, there was the thing with Anders but I learned that it happens regardless of your relationship with him so whatever. Anyway, looking into walkthrough/character info online it shows that, with Isabela, if you don't have high friendship with her or if you didn't romance her, she splits with the Relic where as if you do she does come back out of guilt just before the duel with the Arishok. As for Fenris, if you don't have him in the party with you not only does the Arishok think just a bit less of you but, on top of that, you can't get his final character quest.

Isabela? I knew she would t screwed BioWare's Hawke no matter what. It didn't surprise me at all. In fact, I just let her be eventhough BioWare's Hawke seem to be a bit taken by her action. You could take your revenge on her if you wanted to but for me, nah.., She quite a nice girl sometime and BioWare's Hawke did enjoy her ligh humor although I felt indifferent.

I have no idea about Fenris tho. He wasn't an active party members in my playthroughs. Hawke didn't talk much to him  but he still loyal to Hawke regardless, unless you let Anders live. - which never happen in all my playthroughs.

glenboy24 wrote...

Seriously? In Origins I never had that problem. As long as I talked to everyone at camp, and tossed 'em the occasional gift, they either directed me to their quest or it triggered after a conversation. In Dragon Age 2 it seems dependant on your friendship/rivalry which can really only be effected (at least significantly) by having them in your party for quests, reacting to things and choices. In Origins I had a set and solid party consisting of Shale, Wynne, and Leliana and I *still* experienced all the content in that game. In Dragon Age II it had been my intention to have a party consisting of Aveline, Merrill, and Varic. And it was *awesome.* Didn't even need a healer because I was just laying waste to the swarms of bad guys. 

Then I get to the end and discover that I was, basically, punished for my preference.

So, long story short (too late) Is this true? Did I miss something? Or does the game, in fact, smack you in the face content/story wise for not dragging other characters with you *just* for the sake of Friendship/Rivalry? 

It's the problem with increasing your friendship point will decrease your rivalry points. My average friendship/rivalry constants stuck around 5 to 15 points, not enough to trigger the companions personal quest but what the heck. I just cheat and not going to let it punished me for being neutral. - The reason why I never like playing paragon or Renegade Shepard. Being neutral in ME 2 mean all your squadmates will die due to not enough [aragon/renegade points to maintain thier loyalty.

The thing about DA 2 and ME 2 ( I don't know about ME 3. I quit ME franchise after ME 2 ) is BioWare doesn't design character development for neutral diplomatic character - which is a shame since my character always neutral. And I hope they address that in DA 3. Neutral character should benefit the best consequence for being objective and not bias by siding anyone. 

[Corker]

robertthebard wrote...

Just another note, the perspective seems off to me, as well. You are not being punished for preference in as much as you are not being rewarded for not earning influence with your companions.

Or, put another way:

People say they want their in-game choices to matter.

These are the choices that matter, that affect your gameplay, that alter the content you get and how that content is emotionally colored.

I would have liked separate end boss fights, too, but the game's choices involve a lot more than that.  And sometimes the choices you make have consequences you don't like. That's how it goes.

[robertthebard]

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

glenboy24 wrote...

Seriously? In Origins I never had that problem. As long as I talked to everyone at camp, and tossed 'em the occasional gift, they either directed me to their quest or it triggered after a conversation. In Dragon Age 2 it seems dependant on your friendship/rivalry which can really only be effected (at least significantly) by having them in your party for quests, reacting to things and choices. In Origins I had a set and solid party consisting of Shale, Wynne, and Leliana and I *still* experienced all the content in that game. In Dragon Age II it had been my intention to have a party consisting of Aveline, Merrill, and Varic. And it was *awesome.* Didn't even need a healer because I was just laying waste to the swarms of bad guys. 

Then I get to the end and discover that I was, basically, punished for my preference.

So, long story short (too late) Is this true? Did I miss something? Or does the game, in fact, smack you in the face content/story wise for not dragging other characters with you *just* for the sake of Friendship/Rivalry? 

It's the problem with increasing your friendship point will decrease your rivalry points. My average friendship/rivalry constants stuck around 5 to 15 points, not enough to trigger the companions personal quest but what the heck. I just cheat and not going to let it punished me for being neutral. - The reason why I never like playing paragon or Renegade Shepard. Being neutral in ME 2 mean all your squadmates will die due to not enough [aragon/renegade points to maintain thier loyalty.

The thing about DA 2 and ME 2 ( I don't know about ME 3. I quit ME franchise after ME 2 ) is BioWare doesn't design character development for neutral diplomatic character - which is a shame since my character always neutral. And I hope they address that in DA 3. Neutral character should benefit the best consequence for being objective and not bias by siding anyone. 

I think Corker's post addresses this fairly well.  If you don't side with anyone, or, and I'm not sure this is exactly right for how the Rivalry system works, but, against anyone, then there is no way to raise your influence, whether Friendship or Rivalry, and this is pretty realistic.  I would give the shirt off my back to help people I barely know, but I'll only be willing to share more private details with people I consider to be my friends.  I'm sure we're all wired that way, so it's not like I see myself as unique in the latter.  These companions, unlike in Origins, cannot be bought with gifts, their Rivalry/Friendship must be earned, and frankly, I'm trying to do Rivalry now with some of my static companions, and it's harder than I thought it would be.  Some of the responses that I figured would surely earn me Rivalry won Friendship instead, or nothing, and it's driving me nuts trying to do it w/out looking to see what choices would be best.  I don't see that as bad writing, or poor management on BioWare's end at all.

[SiIencE]

I thought to get Fenris his personal quest you needed to travel around a bit in Act2 with him in the party until some slavers show. My preference is mostly Aveline/Varric/Isabela when i'm a mage. I couldn't care less about Anders his quests will happen anyways.

[Ryzaki]

Fenris' character quest has nothing to do with the Arishok. You have to have him in your party in Act 2 as you leave Kirkwall. A character quest for him will randomly trigger.

Obviously if you never have him in your party this quest never triggers.

[Samzo77]

robertthebard wrote...

Just another note, the perspective seems off to me, as well. You are not being punished for preference in as much as you are not being rewarded for not earning influence with your companions.

I agree with this. It's not punishment, so much as a different gameplay experience based on how you play your character. Personally, I'm not a big fan of 100% achievement with one play through. The story should be different depending on my decisions, and the supporting cast should react differently with each decision as well.

[CuriousArtemis]

glenboy24 wrote...

In Origins I never had that problem. As long as I talked to everyone at camp, and tossed 'em the occasional gift, they either directed me to their quest or it triggered after a conversation.

Mm, actually, I've never gotten Leliana's personal quest.  I always talked to her and camp and maxed her out with gifts, so dunno what the deal was.  I never took her with me though.

I really liked Isabela's betrayal.  It makes sense; why would she come back if she doesn't trust or even like Hawke?  I wouldn't lol

[robertthebard]

motomotogirl wrote...

glenboy24 wrote...

In Origins I never had that problem. As long as I talked to everyone at camp, and tossed 'em the occasional gift, they either directed me to their quest or it triggered after a conversation.

Mm, actually, I've never gotten Leliana's personal quest.  I always talked to her and camp and maxed her out with gifts, so dunno what the deal was.  I never took her with me though.

I really liked Isabela's betrayal.  It makes sense; why would she come back if she doesn't trust or even like Hawke?  I wouldn't lol

After she talks about Marjolaine, you have to take her with you, there'll be an ambush, and presto, personal quest is underway.

[RogueWriter3201]

Appreciate all the feedback. While I remain disappointed with how the Friendship/Rivalry system forces companions on you for the sake of improving said Friendship or Rivalry score without the aid of gifts (save one for each companion) I suppose there isn't anything that can be done. It doesn't ruin the game, not at all, it just leaves me feeling a bit let down. Hopefully DA3's system is more on par with Origin's management of companions (i.e. you don't have to take them everywhere to build the relationships, just talk to them at camp/give gifts) Regardless, thanks for the various observation/perspectives/inputs. It's unfortunate that it merely is how it is and there isn't a work-around as I hoped as I don't enjoy alternate playthroughs.