36 réponses à ce sujet

[Bail_Darilar]

I know that we don't know much about the game yet but in terms of companion approval system which id you prefer:

1. DA:O - where the maximum you got was 100 and the minimum you got was -100. If your companion's approval dropped to a certain negative point they can leave your party.

2. DA2 - where instead of negatives or positives you had a friendship/rivalry bar with points pushing the bar one ay or the other.

Personally I feel the frienship/rivalry system is better but the idea that a companion might leave you intrigues me, what if there was a second bar which was a show of loyalty or respect. Though they might be your friend someone may not respect you as a leader or some of the decisions you make conversely someone could see you as a rival but have an immense amount of respect for you. I think that would add many more dimensions to your companions.

What do you think?

[Darth Wraith]

I really enjoyed the friendship/rivalry system from DA2. Every party member had a unique talent tree that you could invest points in the way you saw fit, with a special bonus that depended on their relationship with you. In my opinion this was an improvement over DA:O, although there was nothing wrong with that system either.

I like the idea of party members leaving, but I think that should be something that happens at certain important and climactic events, not just when you pick the wrong dialogue option in a conversation.

[MichaelStuart]

If I had to choose between DA:O and DA2 I would choose DA2.
But I prefer they come up with something new for Dragon Age 3.

[zyntifox]

Hmm, it really depends. The friendship/rivalry system works well if the PC and the companions have a common goal they are striving for. This system would have worked great in DA:O since the party members all wanted, more or less, to kill the archdemon. It never made any sense to me to have it in DA2 though. For example, i don't understand why Anders would keep fighting by my side when i keep siding with the templars every time. In my opinion a approval/disapproval system would have made more sense in DA2.

[Reofeir]

If they had to pick anything I rather they picked DA2's system. But like MichaelStuart said I would be interested if they made a new system of doing things...if it works well, of course.

[FaWa]

DA2's was good for gameplay, bad for the story. If I go killing every mage in Kirkwall, WHY DO ANDERS/MERILL HELP ME?

[Wrathion]

I prefer DAO's way of handling things. I mean...I wish it were switched it doesn't make sense to me that during a blight that threatened the entire world if your companions didn't like you enough they would leave you. Considering that several of them showed a desire to SAVE people or at least stop it from spreading (Leliana, Sten, Wynne) Da2's rivalry/friendship would have worked better. They may hate you, but they'll do what they need to.

DAO's would have worked better in my opinion for DA2. There is no pressing issue where every single companion needs to stay with you. No matter what you do. Using FaWa's example if you go around killing every mage, act overly aggressive to him, and pretty much disagree with everything he says,why does Anders stay with you? Another peeve of mine is with Fenris' "Alone" quest where if you agree to give Fenris back to Danarius (Maker forbid) and go through with it EVERYONE (except for Anders) disapproves. And you get some measly rivalry(that you can EASILY make up depending on when you finished this quest) and every thing goes back to normal. That would be something you'd leave over...not get...rivalry for.

Modifié par Alexandrine Delassixe, 17 août 2012 - 09:31 .

[jillabender]

As I've said before, I may be alone in this, but I'd like to see the approval system go altogether. I'd prefer for relationships with companion characters to proceed a bit differently depending on your character's choices in conversations, but in an organic way that's tailored to each companion character and that makes sense for that character. In real life, relationships are too complex to fit onto a simple continuum of friendship and/or rivalry, and ideally, I'd like to see interactions with companion characters reflect this.

Modifié par jillabender, 17 août 2012 - 11:36 .

[Kidd]

I think the DA2 system is great, but it needs a detail added to it. That relations can develop in different paths is a great addition to the game. The problem comes where, for instance, if you are pro-mage yet anti-slavers, Fenris will not budge from the middle of the bar. You gain rivalry points by helping mages and friendship by killing slavers.

Thing is, why is the slaver issue tied to his friend/rival bar in the same way the mage issue is? He may be able to comprehend that some mages are good, but I doubt you could ever make him believe slavers are decent folk.

He should not lose respect (rivalry) with Hawke if Hawke stops slavers. Instead, when Hawke offs some slavers, you should gain rivalry points with Fenris if you're on the rivalry path or friendship points if you're on the friendship path. You should always gain respect with him by doing this. Similarly, if you are a slaver apologist then you should be pushed toward the middle of the bar - essentially losing respect in its purest form.

tl;dr if BioWare implemented a function where certain actions could give potentially both friend/rival points if the character unquestioningly likes what was done, and the same system could also push the friend/rival bar toward the middle no matter what, we'd get the benefits of both the DAO and DA2 systems at once in a single easy-to-read bar.

[Dagr88]

Friendship/rivalry system is better in every way.
In DA:O negative score meant that character might leave you, but at the same time s/he could be asked to pack his/her thing at any point by visiting Camp. There were some extra lines like "Me don't like what you do. Me leave you. Try to stop Me.", but that's it.

F/R allows you to ****** them off  if you don't like them. And game provides several crossroads that give you a choice "should I keep him/her or let go".  The only friends that your companions have are your other companions. And since you're the glue that hold this "family together" leaving you without some major reason or while s/he is not in a rage mode (those crossroads)is...

+ Depending on your DA2 companion's F/R status the course of his/her actions might be different. (I mean both, before and after "Epilogue")

Modifié par Dagr88, 18 août 2012 - 01:01 .

[Ausstig]

I prefer DA2's, made for better role play, as in I didn't have worry about half my party leaving if an not supper nice to them, I liked being able to Anders to shut it and suffer a stat reduction.

[CuriousArtemis]

I have to admit, I don't like either. I HATE pandering my choices towards the companions, just to keep them happy (and I'm obsessed with keeping everyone happy). I enjoyed ME3 a lot for that reason; everyone was already Shepard's buddy and it didn't matter what choices I made (and I was not given the chance to make truly **** decisions that would seriously ****** people off, so it made sense that no one hated Shepard for anything he did or said.)

I know I'm in the minority, but just felt like voicing my opinion I just don't like worrying about losing my companions LOL (And even in DA2, you do lose them if you didn't please or ****** them off enough.)

[Giltspur]

Each has their advantages

DAO Advantages
You can pretty much do what you want and just paper over any problems with gifts.  Which is kind of crap but if you're a virtuous gamer you can make it work.

DA2 Advantages
It at least attempts to be a good approval system.  The downside is that it favors extreme friendship or extreme rivalry.  I figure a balanced relationship (frienship on some things and rival on others) should be just as rewarded by the game.

So I like DA2 more but they should avoid situations where a relationships stalls because you stay at the middle of the meter.  The middle of the meter should be fine!

In short, DA2's is better, but the openness of DAO's allows you to simulate things that DA2's system might get in the way of.  Overall, improving on DA2's is probably the way to go.

Modifié par Giltspur, 18 août 2012 - 05:38 .

[Wulfram]

I like the F/R system in DA2, because it enhanced replayability to have two interesting paths.

But it was flawed, mostly because it was inconsistent. Too often rivalry was used as effectively disapproval, probably because there was no actual disapproval and there probably needed to be.

And it resulted into somewhat bizarre outcomes if you agreed with the companion on some things but not on others. Fenris will quite likely end up attacking a pro-mage character who opposes blood magic and slavery, but will probably side with a full on Danarius 2.0 evil blood mage.

Modifié par Wulfram, 18 août 2012 - 05:40 .

[Androme]

 While the approval system from DA2 may appear more polished I really did enjoy the one from DAO much more, it felt more.. Satisfying when I got + Approval with a character.

[Uccio]

Origins system. Rivalry in DA2 made no sense.

Modifié par Ukki, 18 août 2012 - 08:06 .

[Sith Grey Warden]

I like what the OP said. If separating reputation from paragon/renegade worked for ME3, why wouldn't it work for DA3?

[MoogleCoat]

I prefer the Origins system a bit better because I prefer one direction to work with, I think that DA3 however should do a stacking approval system, where you gain both friendship and rivarly points that only increase the releationship and depending on what ratio you have determines a diffrent kind of releationship, kinda like dungeon siege's class system

[Dave of Canada]

Approval/Disapproval and Rivalry/Friendship need to co-exist in the perfect world, brow-beating your friends shouldn't have them suddenly find you confronted with the fact that you "hate mages" because the Rivalry path for that one character is tied to anti-mage activities most of the time.

Being an ass and supporting them is different than being nice but not supporting them, this needs to be presented in the game.

[Wulfram]

How about doing it like reputation in ME3?

So Opinion = Friendship (how much you agree with them) + Rivalry (how much you disagree with them) + Approval (plain unflavoured whether they like you).

With loyalty checks and stuff like that being done based on Opinion, but dialogue being flavoured based on the proportion.

[King Cousland]

Neither. DA:O's failed in that you could just keep giving companions gifts to max out their approval, yet in succeeded in having companions react more appropriately depending on your approval. 
I see what DA II was trying to do, but it failed in that companions do need to disapprove of some things, not just gain rivalry points. I understand the argument that they don't turn on Hawke or leave the party because - despite their differences - they still respect each other. But when I walk around Kirkwall removing the head of every mage I can get my hands on, it's just inrealistic that Anders or Merrill stays with me (by the same token, I didn't like it when Sebastian and Fenris just sat by when I did everything I could to liberate magic-users). 

So, I'd like to propose something originally suggested by a wiki user called Ygrain - The Approval Triangle:

"The neutral position would be in the middle, the vertices then the maxed values of frienship, rivalry and, uh, hatred. Friendship would be agreement in all issues, with a possibility to start a romance at high friendship values (could be set different for each character). Rivalry would be a respectful disagreement over minor issues, with a possibility of occasional sex somewhere in the middle of the bar, until a very high/maxed value is reached, at which point the sex option is no longer available and the person refuses to hang out with Hawke at all unless it's really important (i.e. main quests). Finally, hatred points would be obtained for disagreement over major issues (different or possibly non-existent for a particular character) and/or being rude to the character (e.g. adressing Isabela as ****); when maxed, the character would leave for good or even attack Hawke or initiate a hostile action (e.g. Fenris might denounce a pro-mage Hawke to the Templars)."

Modifié par King Cousland, 18 août 2012 - 10:57 .

[Wulfram]

I never felt that the gift spam was actually all that much of a bad thing. The mechanism was a little silly, but I took it as an abstraction of a general tendency for you to get closer to your companions over time even if you did fall out occasionally.

Though it was rather too effective once you knew where all the gifts were and who to give them to. Less so on the first playthrough when I'm confused and basically giving everything to Leliana because I can't work out what's actually good

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

X: Disposition
Y: Respect

For the extremes, you could have:

(X) + (Y) = Admiration
(-X) + (Y) = Rivalry
(X) + (-Y) = Attachment
(-X) + (-Y) = Loathing

Or something.

Modifié par CrustyBot, 19 août 2012 - 02:50 .

[Maria Caliban]

Friendship/Rivalry and if you do something that pisses them off ("I'mma gonna pour dragon blood in Andreste's ashes, Lelianna!") they leave you.

[Foolsfolly]

Bail_Darilar wrote...

I know that we don't know much about the game yet but in terms of companion approval system which id you prefer:

1. DA:O - where the maximum you got was 100 and the minimum you got was -100. If your companion's approval dropped to a certain negative point they can leave your party.

2. DA2 - where instead of negatives or positives you had a friendship/rivalry bar with points pushing the bar one ay or the other.

Personally I feel the frienship/rivalry system is better but the idea that a companion might leave you intrigues me, what if there was a second bar which was a show of loyalty or respect. Though they might be your friend someone may not respect you as a leader or some of the decisions you make conversely someone could see you as a rival but have an immense amount of respect for you. I think that would add many more dimensions to your companions.

What do you think?

Friendship/rivialry bar with a few crisis points in the story where your actions may have companions leave you. Like if the next game focuses on a war and you're in charge of a group of men and burn a village down and run through the civilians to demoralize your foes and brutalize them into submission. A more morally upright companion could no longer stand to be around you.

Friend/rival means you don't have to step around on eggshells when talking to companions. You can be whatever you're roleplaying being. But certain events should have such importance on them that some companions can no longer be around you. They may even agree (based on their friendship or rivalry) but they cannot be party to the things you're doing.

These crisis points should be spread out (after all if every mission was a crisis point we'd have no companions by the half way point of the game) but they should be based off of choices not just plot demands. Like burning down that village and putting the villagers to the stake should be additional dialogue to a subordient it shouldn't be a forced "should we do it."

But the friendship/rivalry system despite having a meh name is a better system than like/dislike.