23 réponses à ce sujet

[Sainna]

As we found out companion bantering is not going anywhere ( much love bioware ), I was discussing something with a friend and got to a new, minor concern!

How will DA3 handle companions reacting to you if you are 'evil' so to speak (when talking to them at your 'base' and such, not random comments)? Will they just turn their backs to you and fullout ignore or will it be handled a bit like it was in DA2 with Rivalry where they where just a bit more...well they where just different but you still got plenty of dialogue instead of a ''Hmpf! Not talking to you!"

Just to be clear, I do not mind if some compaions would refuse to talk to my charecter after quite a bit of abuse but I adored the Rivalry system because that allowed me to play a more darker charecter without the fear that if I do not please most of my npcs I will lose out on valuable/interesting dialogue. So yup, yup! Any news on this somewhere? Also last but not least, what would you like to see when it comes to your companions reacting to more darker deeds? Did DA2's Rivalry system make you a bit less hesitant with getting those minus heart signs as there was little dialogue loss?

...Also last time as I realise my topic name might be missleading. I do not mind If our evil/darker charecters are punished with companions grring, perhaps attacking and even rearly ignoring us as long as it does not feel like a huge loss in the conversation department! I might also be overthinking this but what the heck!, there's always ''gifts'' to make up for mess ups in worse case scenario x)

Editing one more time O_O!:
I believe the punishing is fine just not at the cost of losing out on charecter conversations! I would be happy that I lose out on a happy we are best friends chat and in return get a ''I hate you, you dirty mage loving, demon summoning monster!''

Modifié par Sainna, 05 octobre 2012 - 03:46 .

[Maclimes]

Here's what I'd like to see:

A couple of companions who were clearly more approving/disapproving of your evil/good nature, but actually reacted accordingly.

I NEVER understood why Fenris continued to hang out with me, when I constantly was supporting mages and slavers in one game. That's not "rivalry", that's downright enemies. Same goes for Anders and constantly imprisoning or attacking mages. It makes no sense.

[Wotannanow]

It's always fun when you have companions with opinions that differ from yours. Trying to convince them they are wrong and you are right can be pretty fun. I also liked that in DAO companions had a breaking point where they attacked or walked away from you.

[RazorrX]

What I would like is the rivalry/friendship system but with a hard line where *some* characters would simply abandon you (or in some instances attack you). Fenris only turned on my mage at the end when I sided with mages. That made zero sense as it seemed to totally violate his personality for the bulk of the game.

Some characters maybe could be turned to your way of thinking, others should stand up against what you are doing and some would not really care.

What I want is for my companions to really be their own character, and not just an ego stroking addon for me.

[DarkKnightHolmes]

Some characters should ditch you for being goody two shoes. I mean being "evil" will make you lose Leliana, Wynne and Shale but goody two shoe never have to worry about that.

[Sainna]

Maclimes wrote...

Here's what I'd like to see:

A couple of companions who were clearly more approving/disapproving of your evil/good nature, but actually reacted accordingly.

I NEVER understood why Fenris continued to hang out with me, when I constantly was supporting mages and slavers in one game. That's not "rivalry", that's downright enemies. Same goes for Anders and constantly imprisoning or attacking mages. It makes no sense.

Why did you just not give him back to his Master? O_O Fenris that is.

[Medhia Nox]

Companions are the one place where I believe you SHOULD be punished for being evil.

An evil character should have access to better gear - faster leveling - more money and every other "material" good in the game.

A good character should struggle more - sacrifice more - but have more loyal friends.

Having loyal "evil friends" is ... to me... the most unbelievable stretch and really is a sign - again, to me - of placating the Grimdarks.

Modifié par Medhia Nox, 05 octobre 2012 - 03:44 .

[RazorrX]

DarkKnightHolmes wrote...

Some characters should ditch you for being goody two shoes. I mean being "evil" will make you lose Leliana, Wynne and Shale but goody two shoe never have to worry about that.

I can see that happening as well.  

[Maclimes]

Medhia Nox wrote...

Companions are the one place where I believe you SHOULD be punished for being evil.

An evil character should have access to better gear - faster leveling - more money and every other "material" good in the game.

A good character should struggle more - sacrifice more - but have more loyal friends.

Having loyal "evil friends" is ... to me... the most unbelievable stretch and really is a sign - again, to me - of placating the Grimdarks.

This ... is a very good point. I like it.

[Sainna]

RazorrX wrote...

DarkKnightHolmes wrote...

Some characters should ditch you for being goody two shoes. I mean being "evil" will make you lose Leliana, Wynne and Shale but goody two shoe never have to worry about that.

I can see that happening as well.  

Heh, that would be quite amusing! Though on that subject they would actually need us to give quite the dark/evil charecter.

[Heidenreich]

Even in D2 characters had breaking points. Anders would leave if you made the deal with the fade demon (mind you he comes back at the end.) Aveline and Merrill and Fenris all will turn against you if you haven't done enough to earn their trust. Seb's breaking point is not killing Anders. Isabela will leave if you haven't earned her trust and opt to give the book to the Arishok.

In fact the only one who doesn't is Varric, but then he's telling the story ;p

[NovaBlastMarketing]

I think renegades should be punished . Where paragons get all the advantages . It should be the opposite if someone is going to pick all renegade choices they should have major disadvantage.

Maybe a global reputation system where companions will refuse to join/ will leave attack you unless you meet rep requirements , stores will not want your business and quest givers will not trust you.

In the words of the Mighty MInsc: This behavior must not continue. Feel the burning stare of my hamster and change your ways.

[Medhia Nox]

People like nice people - and they don't like mean people... even selfish crude d-bags like nice people and hate other mean people.

How many a-holes do you people hang around? It's pretty much a fact of what I've experienced in life that d-bags tend to actually prey on the patience and good will of nice people.

While being an a-hole and being beloved is fancy Grimdark wish-fulfillment - I think it challenges my ability to suspend disbelief more than dragons and blood magic.

[Sainna]

Evil/Renegade does not always just mean...well as you put it a-holeness.
It can mean that you kick a puppy down a cliff to save the world instead of trying to despretly find a way to save the world and the puppy even if that means a lot of harships/risks that might just be best avoided.
I gladly have a companion shout at my charecter/argue if it was right to kick down the puppy but not ''Ill just ignore you now''

Modifié par Sainna, 05 octobre 2012 - 04:09 .

[Huntress]

RazorrX wrote...

What I would like is the rivalry/friendship system but with a hard line where *some* characters would simply abandon you (or in some instances attack you). Fenris only turned on my mage at the end when I sided with mages. That made zero sense as it seemed to totally violate his personality for the bulk of the game.

Some characters maybe could be turned to your way of thinking, others should stand up against what you are doing and some would not really care.

What I want is for my companions to really be their own character, and not just an ego stroking addon for me.

But thats where Charisma enter to play, he side with Hawke only after Hawke had worked hard to gain him, if Hawke do NOT quest for him, then fenris will die no question about that, same goes with Merril, Aveline will leave aswell.

Now I do not agree that character iF evil should be rewarded at all. If the Character is evil,do wrong things and kills for the heck of it, then he has to pay a price for it, that means this evil character should find himself alone and surrender by his well earned enemies when the time comes.
Just the same for the good Character who always pays the price for trying to "save everyone", some people should be killed thats true but not everyone! The asari Rana taught us that in ME1, same goes with the Cardinal orders from DA2.

[Foolsfolly]

I don't know what to say here. I like the friendship/rivalry. Yes, the term rival doesn't fully fit especially when you can be aggressively against someone. But the idea that you can role-play and keep your tank/healer is a great one. In DA:O my more pragmatic/evil characters turned into shoe-loving, love-hating, supportive characters the moment I went to camp just to keep some of those more essential support characters (or not bringing certain characters to certain events like Shale to the Anvil when I want golems to fight the darkspawn).

Does it make sense? Somewhat. There are times when it makes sense and then there are times you adopt a slave, kill templars, and preach about how mages should be free and for some reason Fenris hasn't tried to Kitty Pryde his fist into your chest.

But overall I like they way they handled it in DA2. I think the friend/rival thing just needs one small change.

You earn Friend points by supporting your companions ideals.
Rival points by arguing against whatever their character is about (mage freedom for Fenris, mages are dangerous for Anders, screw your oath to the Maker and take your birthright for Sebastian for example).
And a Dislike which takes you to the center of their Friend/Rival meter. Dislike would be earned for being a complete ass to these characters. After all how can you deepen your relationship with someone if you just purposely troll them?

But I have confidence BioWare will not let us down here. Rival/Friendship was a really smart move and in general works fine. In some cases it needed a little more of a deft touch.

[Inprea]

Medhia Nox wrote...

Companions are the one place where I believe you SHOULD be punished for being evil.

An evil character should have access to better gear - faster leveling - more money and every other "material" good in the game.

A good character should struggle more - sacrifice more - but have more loyal friends.

Having loyal "evil friends" is ... to me... the most unbelievable stretch and really is a sign - again, to me - of placating the Grimdarks.

I'm going to strongly disagree with the faster leveling bit. In every pin and paper role playing system I've been part of the game master is encouraged to reward players that take on an additional burden. The person who manages to take down an ogre with a rusty sword that once belonged to his farmer father should be rewarded more experience then the one who stole the high end steel sword from the smithy.

The greater the challenge the greater the experience reward. Experience isn't a material good but rather a quantificaton of how much the character has developed one way or the other. By using an inferior weapon you have to rely on your own attributes more.

[Sylvanpyxie]

I like the Rivalry/Friendship system, but it removed something that I consider to be extremely important in companion interaction - Consequence.

There should always be consequences to actions that companions disagree with.

Whether it's a companion that despises weakness and constantly berates you for assisting the weak or helpless. Or it's a companion that believes you should protect the weak and leaves you for your constant exploitation of the poor, weak, defenseless minorities.

Whether you are good, evil, or just an idiot - Companions should always react appropriately according to their personalities.

It's possible to create characters that will not abandon the Player, regardless of decisions made, and it can be done extremely well without breaking the defined personality of the character. (Alistair and his duty to defeat the Blight, for instance)

However it's also possible to create a character that is shoe-horned into remaining with the protagonist, regardless of how much their personal beliefs are stomped on, despite the fact their personalities are obviously in direct opposition to the continued servitude of the Player(Fenris and Mages), and this is nothing short of terrible.

Of course there are more subtle "rivalries" that can develop. Gentle persuasion that pushes a companion character to change, the "hardening" of Leliana and Alistair are examples of this and so is Isabela's rivalry path - However, when you pursue these paths, you're not contradicting their beliefs, their personalities or completely disregarding them as human beings. You're offering your opinions, or they're learning by example.

There's a great difference between shoe-horning and persuasion.

I believe that characters should never be shoe-horned into assisting a Player that has ruined their lives, spat on their beliefs and effectively disregarded them as human beings, especially if it breaks every aspect of their personality. I also believe it's possible to change a character, without abusing the very foundations of their belief system.

Ultimately, I believe that there should be consequences to every interaction you have with a companion character. Whether it's a "hardening" of their personality, a character refusing to converse with you, or a companion choosing to leave your company because you've completely disregarded their personal beliefs and opinions.

If the Rivalry/Friendship system included the actions of the Player through-out the game, and punished or rewarded the player accordingly, then it would be a truly marvelous system. However, If the Rivalry/Friendship system continues to shoe-horn strong willed, independent and *defined* characters into illogical servitude to the Player, then it should be wiped from the face of the earth.

There should always be consequences to companion interaction and players should be punished, or rewarded, according to the character in question.

Modifié par Sylvanpyxie, 05 octobre 2012 - 04:43 .

[Sainna]

As it has been pointed out, consequence where still present with the Rivalry system. Many could abandon you / side against you at the end, no?
The system just ( in my strange view) made sure that you will still get a charming amount of interesting/harsh dialogue without having to fear a big ignore early on.

[Foolsfolly]

Sylvanpyxie wrote...

I like the Rivalry/Friendship system, but it removed something that I consider to be extremely important in companion interaction - Consequence.

There should always be consequences to actions that companions disagree with.

Whether it's a companion that despises weakness and constantly berates you for assisting the weak or helpless. Or it's a companion that believes you should protect the weak and leaves you for your constant exploitation of the poor, weak, defenseless minorities.

Whether you are good, evil, or just an idiot - Companions should always react appropriately according to their personalities.

It's possible to create characters that will not abandon the Player, regardless of decisions made, and it can be done extremely well without breaking the defined personality of the character. (Alistair and his duty to defeat the Blight, for instance)

However it's also possible to create a character that is shoe-horned into remaining with the protagonist, regardless of how much their personal beliefs are stomped on, despite the fact their personalities are obviously in direct opposition to the continued servitude of the Player(Fenris and Mages), and this is nothing short of terrible.

Of course there are more subtle "rivalries" that can develop. Gentle persuasion that pushes a companion character to change, the "hardening" of Leliana and Alistair are examples of this and so is Isabela's rivalry path - However, when you pursue these paths, you're not contradicting their beliefs, their personalities or completely disregarding them as human beings. You're offering your opinions, or they're learning by example.

There's a great difference between shoe-horning and persuasion.

I believe that characters should never be shoe-horned into assisting a Player that has ruined their lives, spat on their beliefs and effectively disregarded them as human beings, especially if it breaks every aspect of their personality. I also believe it's possible to change a character, without abusing the very foundations of their belief system.

Ultimately, I believe that there should be consequences to every interaction you have with a companion character. Whether it's a "hardening" of their personality, a character refusing to converse with you, or a companion choosing to leave your company because you've completely disregarded their personal beliefs and opinions.

If the Rivalry/Friendship system included the actions of the Player through-out the game, and punished or rewarded the player accordingly, then it would be a truly marvelous system. However, If the Rivalry/Friendship system continues to shoe-horn strong willed, independent and *defined* characters into illogical servitude to the Player, then it should be wiped from the face of the earth.

There should always be consequences to companion interaction and players should be punished, or rewarded, according to the character in question.

Strong words.

Strong words I can't agree with. I think there should be more crisis points for those stronger willed characters where they'll leave you. I mean even DA2 had Fenris, Anders, and Isabela as characters that could leave you. (Fenris if you didn't go after the slavers, Anders is polite enough to ask which you can totally tell him to get lost, and Isabela only returns if you've got a high Friendship/Rivalry with her).

Perhaps having a few more of these crisis points "If you do this you'll do it without me" or "I can't let you do this." Moments where there are hard consquences.

But add too many crisis points and it just annoys players. Look at Isabela (or Zevran in DA:O) which I didn't know could leave (betray you) until I came on these boards and saw people asking how you can keep her (having him side with you). I mean it's not hard to keep either one of them but people had trouble with it. I remember seeing another poster even say you can only keep Isabela if you romance her. They just didn't understand it.

And then there's the fact that whenever this discussion comes up I always have Vietnam flashbacks to Knights of the Old Republic 2 which is a maze of Likes and Dislikes. My first run through got deleted entirely because I was like level 20 and no one particularly liked me and the internet told me I'd already messed up my chance at getting Bao-Dur into a Jedi.

Perhaps there should always be an option to kick someone out of your friends list like in DA:O. Role-playing a character that is opposed to one character (me and usually Anders) then just kick them out of your reindeer games.

[Foolsfolly]

Sainna wrote...

As it has been pointed out, consequence where still present with the Rivalry system. Many could abandon you / side against you at the end, no?
The system just ( in my strange view) made sure that you will still get a charming amount of interesting/harsh dialogue without having to fear a big ignore early on.

The game tries its damnedest to make sure you always have one Rogue, Warrior, and Mage. If Anders is kicked out of your team Merrill sides with you regardless. Varric always agrees with you, and I'm not sure if Aveline will ever leave you but Fenris can abandon you and help the Templars at the end if you support the Mages.


My first DA2 character had Fenris and Carver opposing me on the Templar side while the others stood by my side. In Carver's case he actually asked to help and I told me to ****** off this fight was invitable. It was awesome.

[naughty99]

NovaBlastMarketing wrote...

Maybe a global reputation system where companions will refuse to join/ will leave attack you unless you meet rep requirements , stores will not want your business and quest givers will not trust you.

Could be interesting, especially if your reputation with various NPC factions is being tracked independently based on your choices along the way.

However, I really hope they don't implement anything like the system ME2, where you must always choose "rude" or always "pushover" in order to unlock important dialogue options later in the game. This was the worst feature of ME2, as it turned the dialogue options into a sort of mini-game instead of of facilitating roleplaying the way you think your character would choose to respond.

Modifié par naughty99, 05 octobre 2012 - 05:10 .

[Kaosbuddy]

Sainna wrote...

As it has been pointed out, consequence where still present with the Rivalry system. Many could abandon you / side against you at the end, no?
The system just ( in my strange view) made sure that you will still get a charming amount of interesting/harsh dialogue without having to fear a big ignore early on.

If it only kicks in for the final scene, is it really a consequence?

[Sainna]

Kaosbuddy wrote...

Sainna wrote...

As it has been pointed out, consequence where still present with the Rivalry system. Many could abandon you / side against you at the end, no?
The system just ( in my strange view) made sure that you will still get a charming amount of interesting/harsh dialogue without having to fear a big ignore early on.

If it only kicks in for the final scene, is it really a consequence?

Yes but I fully accept that it seriously lessens the consequence and perhaps that was going a bit too far ( as in waiting to the very end before your companions gave you the finger).