32 réponses à ce sujet

[whykikyouwhy]

Seems to me that people make compromises all the time, even ones that seem to be counter to their opinions, beliefs or stances on things. Seems to me also that people grow and change and shift their perspective on some matters as they are exposed to new thoughts and ideas. Seems to me that for matters of trust and/or love, people might be willing to aid and assist the person they care about, even if it seems that his/her efforts are folly - because they believe in that person and perhaps also believe that somewhere along the lines, they'll be able to make amends, or be able to support their own agendas and desires - that all parties will be able to benefit.

DA2, and even DA:O, may have presented extreme circumstances where companions supported the PC (they didn't "side" with him/her exactly), they remained in touch with their own beliefs. What they did was help out a friend/lover who, despite their differences, was someone they regarded highly and with respect. And there are a variety of reasons why someone would help another person that they feel love and/or respect towards. Maybe DA2 didn't present the 'whys' as strongly as it could have in dialogue and banter, but it's not so untoward or unusual for such behavior to occur.

[mousestalker]

If a friend asks me to do something, I will probably do it. Not so much for acquaintances of course. My friends are people who have earned my trust and I know to be good people. So if a friend asks me to help them, I will. That's why Anders blowing up the Chantry was a betrayal. Even though you know he dislikes the Chantry, you really can't be sure, without meta knowledge, what his intentions are. Part of the perils of friendship is such a betrayal.

A balking companion is interesting. What would also be interesting is a companion who reacts after the fact. Several of the DAO companions do this in camp after certain events. It would be great to see it play out after the event at the scene of the crime as it were.

[fchopin]

caradoc2000 wrote...

Fenris, Merrill and Anders will fight you at the end, if you don't have full friendship/rivalry.

I wish they would fight with me in the begining so i could kill both of them.

[dragonflight288]

mousestalker wrote...

If a friend asks me to do something, I will probably do it. Not so much for acquaintances of course. My friends are people who have earned my trust and I know to be good people. So if a friend asks me to help them, I will. That's why Anders blowing up the Chantry was a betrayal. Even though you know he dislikes the Chantry, you really can't be sure, without meta knowledge, what his intentions are. Part of the perils of friendship is such a betrayal.

A balking companion is interesting. What would also be interesting is a companion who reacts after the fact. Several of the DAO companions do this in camp after certain events. It would be great to see it play out after the event at the scene of the crime as it were.

That would be interesting.

[CELL55]

I think that one of the problems with the Friendship/Rivalry system is that it doesn't allow for hatred. Sure, a companion can swear that she never wants to see you again (Merril), but then she stays in your party and all you get is some rivalry points. You get antagonistic friendships, not true antagonism. The game assumes that you want to maintain some level of friendship with the characters, so anything negative you do just becomes rivalry points/aka I'm-only-doing-this-because-I-love-you points.

[Sharn01]

You should also be allowed to just not take companions, or kick them to the curb if you dont like them, or maybe have the satisfaction of casting disintegrate on Anomen.

[DPSSOC]

I think a gradient would be nice. High friendship/approval/rainbows they'll side with you against their own views because they trust you. Mid f/a/r they won't side with you against their own views but they won't stand against you either. They respect you they just can't be part of this. Finally low f/a/r they stand by their views and against you.

[Chipaway111]

CELL55 wrote...

 Another problem with the Friendship/Rivalry system is that it is entirely binary. There is no middle ground. If I am in a rivalry with Anders, then he assumes I must be pro-Templar, no matter what my true allegiance is. If I'm friends with Merril, then I support her crazy blood magic/ demon deals.
You have to either love everything about a character, or hate everything about a character in order to max out the bar. You can't generally like a character but debate certain points of their philosophy because then, according to game mechanics, you'd be slipping into rivalry.
I don't agree 100% with everything my friends do, but that doesn't make us any less of friends for it. We have different opinions, but we are not so bull-headed we let it make us mortal enemies. 

Phew, that was long. Did you get all that? 

There is one small instance in an Anders rivalmance where he asks how you can love him and yet support templars, and the player is offered a diplomatic dialogue choice saying "I do support your cause, just not how you handle it" but the problem was I was rp'ing a sarcastic Hawke who never stopped joking no matter the situation, so in a very specific circumstance you can have more than agree/disagree.

One specific instance. And it doesn't register after that. Ahh... Dragon Age 2.