15 réponses à ce sujet

[SammyJB17]

Hey Bioware Social. It's been a while since I last posted, but here we go.

Dragon Age Origins and Dragon Age 2 both had a lot going for them, but in very different areas. Both of them got friendship systems of judging how your companions feel about you right, despite being different systems.

Dragon Age Origins provided basically a number line, with 100 representing max affection, and -100 representing max hatred. Dragon Age 2 had a similar number line type situation, but with the top representing max affection, and the bottom representing max rivalry. The big bonus of this system was that it encouraged playing as a consistent character- while in Dragon Age Origins I found myself pandering to my companions to get them to like me, Dragon Age 2 let me role play as a consistent character (the lack of options made me upset, but it opened the POSSIBILITY of roleplaying as a consistent character at least)

The negative of this system is that it let everyone win. The companion could look at you as a rival, but they couldn't really despise you- unlike some possibilities in DA:O.

In an ideal world, I'd have a coordinate plane type set up, where it's not set across one axis but two. You'd have companionship and rivalry at the X ends, and Affection and Hatred at the Y ends. You'd end up with a single point representing how close you were to each point.

This would show some nuance. The traditional friend would be closest to companionship and affection, while the rivalry affection represents a Gimli-Legolas type situation, as in they're rivals who like each other. The rival and hatred reminds me most of someone like Gary from the Pokemon series, and companionship and hatred could be someone like Carver, where they're forced to like you, but they resent you.

I'd like some other opinions on this, and which game you feel did it better!

[LolaLei]

I like your idea, I've also been thinking that some sort of system that splits friendship/rivalry from like/hate into two separate categories might work. Not sure how difficult it would be to impliment it though.

[nightscrawl]

SammyJB17 wrote...

... while in Dragon Age Origins I found myself pandering to my companions to get them to like me...

Interesting point.

I prefer the DA2 method by far because it really enabled varied play across multiple playthroughs and allowed you to have different types of relationships with different people. Unfortunately, as you say, the lack of dialogue options makes it difficult to actually tell the person why you're a rival, whether it's because you support mages but disagree with the Anders/Justice Merger, or you think Merrill made a huge mistake with the demon and blood magic, but you support her reasons for doing so (preserving Dalish history/culture).

I would also like basically the same system, but with the additional measured component of personal interaction with the character, rather than only agree or disagree on issues. Unfortunately, the more nuanced a system gets, the more prone to problems it is (game mechanic problems and player confusion problems.)

[Wulfram]

Personally I'd do it so Friendship and Rivalry aren't exclusive, and Friendship+Rivalry=Opinion.

And being a total jerk costs you both Friendship and Rivalry.

Modifié par Wulfram, 16 septembre 2012 - 11:06 .

[eroeru]

^ That might work (better).

[Nerdage]

I did pitch an idea like this a while ago somewhere around here, except I consolidated the number of extremes down to three (friend-like, rival-like and hate; since, if they hate you, why should you be influencing them as a friend/rival?). The more I've thought about it since though the more I think that's just a needlessly over-complicated version of what's already implemented.

Of your two axis, you have one which measures closeness/comradeship and one which measures friendship/rivalry. I think a safe assumption is that comradeship simply builds over time, as you might expect of two people traveling together, so that doesn't really need to be shown if it's implied in dialogue. Then you have friendship/rivalry axis, which is the one affected by player actions and determines the nature of the relationship.


Which is pretty much what DA2 gave us, but there are some things I'd change:

The comradeship axis was pretty much unused in DA2, and that's the axis that should determine when a character feels comfortable talking to the player; in other words, conversations should unlock over time spent together, not at friendship/rivalry milestones. That way, you can flip-flop around friendship/rivalry however's appropriate for your character, but you're not losing out on companion progression. So if you do X number of quests (maybe with that specific companion in the group) you unlock their next conversation, which is influenced by your friendship/rivalry at that time.

Along side that though I think they should bring back crisis points from DAO, except have them triggered by certain decisions (or a certain number of similar decisions) in that companion's presence. So, as an example, say you've handed two groups of mages over to the templars in Anders' presence; he confronts you about it once, then if you do it again he leaves for good. That's the negative end of the comradeship axis sorted in a more natural way.


That's pretty much what I want from the next approval system... And that's a whole lot of text I didn't intend to write... Must be tired.

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

Approval/influence system + persuade ftw.

I don't give a damn about having different kind of nonsense relations with one companion or two. Story and plot are more important things to consider improving.

Dragon Age II General Discussion forum annoys me, is there any DAO fan here at all or all of them have deserted these forums?

[gonzalez.melissa53]

This would be a fun way to play and would be far more believable than what was impamented in DA2. I found the rivalmaces completely engrosing but alittle bit unbelievable. XD

[nightscrawl]

--- SPOILER for Act 2 ---

nerdage wrote...

I think a safe assumption is that comradeship simply builds over time, as you might expect of two people traveling together, so that doesn't really need to be shown if it's implied in dialogue.

Not necessarily. "Familiarity breeds contempt" is the phrase that comes to mind regarding this. Even if you agree with someone on certain issues (whether that be mages, religion, or politics) you can still think they're a total a-hole generally as a person. The more you get to know someone, the more likely you are to like OR dislike them.

Along side that though I think they should bring back crisis points from DAO, except have them triggered by certain decisions (or a certain number of similar decisions) in that companion's presence. So, as an example, say you've handed two groups of mages over to the templars in Anders' presence; he confronts you about it once, then if you do it again he leaves for good. That's the negative end of the comradeship axis sorted in a more natural way.

I definitely agree with this. However, there are two events in Act 2 that can be considered "crisis points" and those are Anders's reaction to your Fade trip and how you handle Fenris during A Bitter Pill. Anders will end a romance and Fenris will leave the party for good if you handle those quests in a certain way.

Modifié par nightscrawl, 16 septembre 2012 - 12:18 .

[Fast Jimmy]

I really like the idea of a two-axis system. While I'm not sure the 'friendship/rivalry' and 'affection/hatred' are the ideal monickers of such a system. Perhaps 'respect and disdain' could better fill the roles of affection and hatred? Where friend/rival is based on how in line you are with a companions idealogues (Mage/Templar, Harrowmont/Bhelen, elves/humans, conservative/risk taking) while the respect/disdain could be how you treat the person as an individual (giving gifts, doing personal quests, insulting them personally, comforting them when they are upset, etc.).

Additionally, there could also be a hardening mechanic added to each portion of the axis, where you can harden (or, alternatively, make them more compassionate) the companions outlook. In DA:O, there was no real benefit to NOT hardening the companion, really (since killing marjorie gets you better loot and hardening Allistair makes the Landsmeet go more smoothly). Having the option to offer this hardened outlook, or to make them compassionate, would be interesting. For instance, making Fenris compassionate could soften his outlook on mages being completely evil, while hardening could possibly lead him to seek out dangerous mages on his own, opening up a separate quest line.

Just one static number for a companion is very misleading and can lead to having the companion fall in love with you in a Rivalmance after you just killed their puppy.

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

saM would love the opportunity for genuine HATE SEX.

For that reason alone, I support this idea.

[fchopin]

I did not like the friend/rivalry system in DA2, it made the game in to a pick the correct answer for person to like you and i thought it was idiotic.
In the end i stopped caring and just picked what appeared to be what i thought my character would say and did not care if i got friend or rivalry points.

I prefer the ME3 system where you can become friends with NPC's irrespective of your gender and i hope they change it in DA3 if there is another game.

[InfinitePaths]

I would simply remove points,relationships cannot be mesured by points.This way you can be friends,rivals but friends,hate each others everything you possibly want,we don't need points.Your actions are supposed shape the companions behavior and opinion of you,not just give +10 or -10..

EDIT:I hate the paragon/renagade system,you just can't roleplay becouse the game forces you to go 100% paragon or 100% renegade becouse its the only way to get additinional dialoge options...So you can't pick the decision you want,you can't be 50% 50%,the game forces you to be Paragon all the way,or Renagede all the way(as i mentioned it's the only way to get additional very usefull dialouge options)...

Modifié par HeriocGreyWarden, 16 septembre 2012 - 04:23 .

[Wulfram]

HeriocGreyWarden wrote...

EDIT:I hate the paragon/renagade system,you just can't roleplay becouse the game forces you to go 100% paragon or 100% renegade becouse its the only way to get additinional dialoge options...So you can't pick the decision you want,you can't be 50% 50%,the game forces you to be Paragon all the way,or Renagede all the way(as i mentioned it's the only way to get additional very usefull dialouge options)...

They fixed that in ME3.  Total reputation is what's necessary for passing checks.

The other games weren't too bad as long as you weren't exactly 50/50.  And imported in the case of ME2

[InfinitePaths]

Wulfram wrote...

HeriocGreyWarden wrote...

EDIT:I hate the paragon/renagade system,you just can't roleplay becouse the game forces you to go 100% paragon or 100% renegade becouse its the only way to get additinional dialoge options...So you can't pick the decision you want,you can't be 50% 50%,the game forces you to be Paragon all the way,or Renagede all the way(as i mentioned it's the only way to get additional very usefull dialouge options)...

They fixed that in ME3.  Total reputation is what's necessary for passing checks.

The other games weren't too bad as long as you weren't exactly 50/50.  And imported in the case of ME2

ME 3 kind of fixed it,but ME3 failed compoared to other ME games so i don't even count ME3.In ME2 i wanted to recruit a companion,but in order to do so i had to have 100% paragon/renagede,in ME2 i wanted to settle arguments with my crewmates but in order to do so i had to have 100% paragon/renagade.But enough about ME3 ,I'm ok if Bioware puts Friendship/Rivaly and Hatred/love becouse anything is better than just a straight line determening a relationship...

[Nerdage]

nightscrawl wrote...

nerdage wrote...

I think a safe assumption is that comradeship simply builds over time, as you might expect of two people traveling together, so that doesn't really need to be shown if it's implied in dialogue.

Not necessarily. "Familiarity breeds contempt" is the phrase that comes to mind regarding this. Even if you agree with someone on certain issues (whether that be mages, religion, or politics) you can still think they're a total a-hole generally as a person. The more you get to know someone, the more likely you are to like OR dislike them.

They could write that as part of the character's normal progression if that's the story they want to tell, or it could be the rivalry path. I don't think it needs to be it's own state in the approval system simply because the more unique paths there are the less feasible the system becomes to implement; it's not about making the most realistic model for human relations after all, it's about making a system that balances the player's influence with the amount of content it requires.

The system I'm suggesting is pretty much the same content they've already been making, except there might need to be some different lines if the player's still neutral for friendship/rivalry.