101 réponses à ce sujet

[fchopin]

I hope they don’t use it again as i found it a complete waist in the game and never used it.

[wright1978]

I preferred friendship/rivalry to the very simplistic approval of DAO. It certainly was imperfect but that doesn't mean it should be chucked out the window with the bath water. Hope it gets tweaked or modified to make it better rather than back stepping to origin system.

[Melca36]

KiddDaBeauty wrote...

I don't think I've actually seen the post where the lack of friend/rivalry is confirmed. This would be the first piece of news that I'm sad to hear about DA3 if it's true.

It needed some work, such as making rivalry green or yellow on the user interface instead of red (cause red has people instinctively thinking it's bad stuff), and perhaps for certain choices to function like the gifts did. You shouldn't get rivalry with Fenris for supporting slavers for instance imho. Fenris should just utterly despise you for it, hence move the meter closer to the middle - the polar opposite of the gifts that always push the meter closer to its currently heading extreme. His personal beef you can influence is about mages after all, I doubt a fully rivalled Fenris has grown to accept Hawke's love of slavers.

It was a post from David Gaider and it was awhile back.

He did not elaborate but said it did not go as well as they wanted and it would be different for the next game.

[KiwiQuiche]

I did like the Friendship/Rivalry thing. After all, you do sometimes get friends who you actually really don't like but still hang out with them. Humans are odd.

[Melca36]

wright1978 wrote...

I preferred friendship/rivalry to the very simplistic approval of DAO. It certainly was imperfect but that doesn't mean it should be chucked out the window with the bath water. Hope it gets tweaked or modified to make it better rather than back stepping to origin system.

From what I remember he said it would be a more evolved version of Origins

Modifié par Melca36, 24 octobre 2012 - 09:20 .

[Melca36]

KiwiQuiche wrote...

I did like the Friendship/Rivalry thing. After all, you do sometimes get friends who you actually really don't like but still hang out with them. Humans are odd.

Rivalry was stupid.  You do things your companion didn't like and they still want to romance you. Sorry but that didnt make sense.

I think thats the reason its being changed too.

[DaringMoosejaw]

Nizaris1 wrote...

DaringMoosejaw wrote...

Nizaris1 wrote...
In DA:O we have the option to reason with our friends using persuade options, there is no such thing in DA2

Eh, I'm not sure what you mean? The whole point of the rivalry is that it DOES let you disagree with them and some of them do change for it! A rivalry with Anders makes him much less sure of his actions at the end of the game, a rivalry with Isabella causes her to be less selfish.

In DA;O, when our companion see what we do and they don't like it, they will say it right there, at that time at that spot, then we can reason with them with persuade option. in DA2, they all silence but love or hate us in the background.

For example, in DA:O, when we want to destroy the Anvil of Void, Morrigan and Zevran will argue, then we reason with them. It is either we agree with them and decide to change our decision, or we continue our decision and manage to convince them on why we choose it.

In DA2, no matter what our decision is, our companions will not say anything about it, such as when Hawke want to save group of mages, no one say anything, but love or hate Hawke based on their sentiment. No argument on why Hawke want to save them. They say something BEFORE we choose, not DURING we make our choice.

There was certainly less immediate arguing (Arguing usually happened later in the private discussions, and were more general instead of about those specific incidents). While I suppose I miss those, it seems sort of lame to instantly change someone's world view because you put points into a skill and said one thing to them. The rivalry mechanic takes a broader view of things, but I'd certainly wouldn't mind more arguments.

Persuade or not, however, you still have to pander to them if you want any relationship development or bonuses in DA:O. You might be able to pop off Persuasion a few times for a mitigated reputation loss or slight gain, but DA:O did the same thing! Thus: Morrigan Disapproves (-10). And there were certainly times when they didn't say anything about it, they just disapproved. And when their rep was at rock bottom, you couldn't argue with them - they just either up and left or you just plain didn't get to explore their arcs.

That's why I much prefer the friendship/rivalry system. It gave you options on how to react to your companions WITHOUT kissing their asses and having to act completely differently from how we usually would in order to get the points. I do agree with some that sometimes it middled out rather easily - the system definitely has some kinks, but it's simply more complex than DA:O's.

[DaringMoosejaw]

Melca36 wrote...

KiwiQuiche wrote...

I did like the Friendship/Rivalry thing. After all, you do sometimes get friends who you actually really don't like but still hang out with them. Humans are odd.

Rivalry was stupid.  You do things your companion didn't like and they still want to romance you. Sorry but that didnt make sense.

Hah! So you're telling me the way to someone's heart is to agree with everything they say? Yeah, the rivalry thing is MUCH more realistic than you think.

Modifié par DaringMoosejaw, 24 octobre 2012 - 09:23 .

[Kidd]

KiwiQuiche wrote...

I did like the Friendship/Rivalry thing. After all, you do sometimes get friends who you actually really don't like but still hang out with them. Humans are odd.

Yeah, like take one of my relations for example. My friend and I get into political bickering all the time and really annoy each other - our views and ideals completely incompatible. Yet somehow we have fun together, he's a blast to talk to and I respect his opinions (even though I may at times poke fun at them, just like he pokes fun at mine). I'd stand up for him easily, any day.

Yeah, humans are odd indeed. xD

[DaringMoosejaw]

Nizaris1 wrote...

Not really, for example, if our relationship with Morrigan is at "Warm" status and we bring her to the Circle and we decide to help the Mages, we don't need to use skill points to persuade her. She quickly realize our intention. She babling about the Circle at first, then in dialogue option "You will be the same like them if you are at their place", Morrigan agree without questioning. She will say "yes, my mother once taught me too look at the other side...." (i don't really remember the whole quote)

But if your relationship is below "warm" status, she will continue to argue

The same with all other companions

Eh, if I remember she starts that argument either way. It's just that there's no persuade check (it happens automatically) if your approval is high enough. And - I have to repeat this - you have to kowtow to them for this to happen still. They don't change from this - they just tolerate your choices. There's no development there.

[DaringMoosejaw]

But nothing changes in the big picture, really - it just mitigates a momentary loss of disapproval. The arguing in DA:O was a good thing that was missing in DA2, but the OVERALL system, how a character deals with you on a regular basis - you had more to work with in DA2. If you disagreed with them a lot, it affected all of your interactions with them. Your relationship with them was fundamentally different, and you approached them differently. In DA:O, they either like you and you can explore their arcs and learn more about them or they just acted normally and you never could learn much or affect them much if they didn't like you.

[Terrorize69]

Rivalry romances, angry sex, yep no complaints here if it returned *cough*

[The Elder King]

I think that there should be two stats, one that checks the companion's relationship with the PC (friend, lover, stranger, etc.) and one that checks his approval on the PC's actions and ideals. As other said, it's possible to be friends with people which share opposite views from your own, as it's possiblle to hate someone who share your same ideals. The problem with DA2's system is that is put those two system together (DAO has the same problem, but the gift spam could make a companion your friend even if they have opposite views).
The double stat system is surely complex, but I think it's better than both DAO and DA2 system. I hope they'll implement this in DA3.

[Amycus89]

Neither system was perfect, but DA2's had a lot more problems. As has already beeen mentioned, companions stick with you no matter what even when you act like a douche among them, and it punishes real roleplaying when you eel forced to make them either super happy or absolutely loath you. hhh89's suggestion above me could work, but it would require more work.

If they do decide to give it another try though I would like them to:
1)Still make it possible for companions to leave you. Maybe not just because they dislike you, but if you do a couple of actions that they just can't stand by (like leliana if you defiled the sacred ashes)
2) Instead of having any real bonuses depending on whether they like or hate you, just change some of their dialogue depending on how much they love/like/neutral/hate/loath you.

[Wulfram]

The fundamental problem, for me, is that the game should make a distinction between being a jerk and disagreeing.

DA:O treated disagreeing as being a jerk, DA2 treated being a jerk as disagreeing

[Rune-Chan]

It had promise, but the issue was that you'd end up in the middle unless you felt strongly about certain issues.

For example Varric always has high friendship for me because he likes light hearted comments and you not telling other people what to do.

Fenris on the other hand I tend to sit in the middle because I get friendship points for being helpful and supportive, but rivalry because I am a mage and support mages for the most part.

[Aulis Vaara]

Emzamination wrote...

Sorry but having to pander to a companion's world views I don't share just to get combat bonuses, romance or keep them is not the way go.It sure as hell didn't work in DaO with useful companions such as wynne and leliana abandoning the pc at the first scent of corruption, so I'm not sure why its even being discussed at the bioware hq.

I, personally, did love that. It was awesome, it meant that you couldn't just do anything without worrying about the consequences.

People complained about Dragon Age II not having consequences for your decisions. Well, this is a part of that! Keeping your characters motivated to keep fighting is one of the most direct consequences of your decisions that you see. It was also awesome to see characters have their own convictions, and having balls enough to stand up to you if you went too far (and they didn't rebel at the first sign of corruption, only if you went too far).

So, consequences among my companions for my actions? Yes please!

[EricHVela]

The problem with Friendship/Rivalry is that Rivalry usually involves respect when the companions obvious didn't respect your decision. Their reaction was mere dislike and not mutually respectful rivalry. That's why the Friend/Rival system was misleading.

Rivals don't simply work together and hate each other. If they can't respect each other when working together, they don't work together.

Like/dislike is easier to code and understand. If you want to have rivalry and friendship, you'd have to add a respect versus "doesn't take the PC seriously" axis to the mix for a 2D relationship value. You'd end up with extremes of Friendship (romanceable), Pity (unromanceable), Contempt (unromanceable), Rival (possibly romanceable).

You've literally squared (x^2) the complexity of a video game relationship. With what payoff based on what must be sacrificed to develop it? Is it worth it? (Try to think of it in terms of what EA would want. They're not supposed to be the boss here, and they don't get to greenlight everything, but they do have influence in many ways, regardless.)

[wright1978]

ReggarBlane wrote...

Like/dislike is easier to code and understand. If you want to have rivalry and friendship, you'd have to add a respect versus "doesn't take the PC seriously" axis to the mix for a 2D relationship value. You'd end up with extremes of Friendship (romanceable), Pity (unromanceable), Contempt (unromanceable), Rival (possibly romanceable).

You've literally squared (x^2) the complexity of a video game relationship. With what payoff based on what must be sacrificed to develop it? Is it worth it? (Try to think of it in terms of what EA would want. They're not supposed to be the boss here, and they don't get to greenlight everything, but they do have influence in many ways, regardless.)

A complex system like the above should be the ideal. It's up to devs to decide if it is a priority and/or if it is feasibly workable. If not whatever compromise system whould do its best to improve upon either weak origins approach or the flawed DA2 approach rather than just using them as they stand.

[vortex216]

I thought the approval system in origins was much better, the only flaw was that if they disapproved they didn't get the bonus points ( Morrigan approves +100 Massive magic unlocked!) and they left if they hated you.