328 réponses à ce sujet

[David Gaider]

MrCousland99 wrote...
No, on the Talk To Anders quest I was  just being friendly then all of a sudden he started hitting on me and I say I am not into men BOOM 10 rivalry if it wasn't for the wiki I wouldn't have found out how to get approval in that quest...BY FLIRTING WITH HIM, so yeah you are punished for having a sexual preference <_<

No, you are not.

Rivalry is not a punishment. It is not "he hates you" as in DAO, meaning you will never get any gameplay benefits or dialogue-- it just changes the aspect of the relationship. That's it. The only "punishment" here is you deciding that Friendship is the only viable path... or being concerned that 10 points of Rivalry is somehow a terrible thing, considering you can make that up and far more before Act 1 is even through.

Should that dialogue have had a more "neutral" way of turning Anders down? Sure. Having looked at the line in question, I don't find it so blisteringly terrible as some have painted it, but whatever. I can see what people are getting at. Personally, I just wish people would stop using it as an excuse when what they're usually talking about is something else.

Modifié par David Gaider, 01 novembre 2012 - 03:25 .

[TEWR]

I'd like the romances -- assuming F/R remains for DA3, which seems likely -- to recognize the choices I've made in-game.

I can be pro-Mage and anti-Anders -- meaning he's Rivaled -- but he actually thinks I sold Grace up the river in Act of Mercy even if I let her go, killed Karras, and Thrask said he'd cover their tracks.

[Palipride47]

Trista Faux Hawke wrote...

Heh, but my point is... who cares if a character hits on you in a video game? It's just a game. It's not reality. People get so heated. It's reality-check time. It's just a freaking game. 

Edit: In Dragon's Dogma I did a quest to save the Dutchess. The result? When I saved her, my female Arisen was featured in a cut scene, having sex with the Dutchess. Heh. I mean - OH NO. Stop the press. I must be a lesbian now, because clearly that tiny little pixel-projection of myself ended up doing some stuff I've never done. It's all so petty. People need to get over it. It's just a GAME. 

But the whole point of this thread was debating how to make these things more "realistic" in terms of the romances (whatever that means to someone with regards to a fantasy game, and it means different things to different people).

People who role-play sometimes want to roleplay as they would in "the real world" and are mad when people don't respond how they think people "in the real world" should respond. 

The debate on the bi aspect sometimes relates to "realism" and the people who argue against "bisexual" characters for "realism" do so under the justification that they know how bisexuality/ human nature in general works. 

And sometimes it is just plain old homophobia.

Modifié par Palipride47, 01 novembre 2012 - 03:40 .

[David Gaider]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...
assuming F/R remains for DA3, which seems likely

It won't, or not quite. Mechanically it'll work the same, but it won't exist as a gating mechanism for interactions and gaining/losing it will be done in the manner of DAO's approval rather than being tied (mostly) to a single character issue.

[Palipride47]

David Gaider wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...
assuming F/R remains for DA3, which seems likely

It won't, or not quite. Mechanically it'll work the same, but it won't exist as a gating mechanism for interactions and gaining/losing it will be done in the manner of DAO's approval rather than being tied (mostly) to a single character issue.

So you will gain/lose approval like you did in Origins (i.e. kiss Bella and Morrigan is -3) but she won't abandon you because now you hit crisis with that kiss, but she will just glower every time you engage her?

Because I think there was a discussion of Hawke hates slavers but loves mages = no realtionship progress in either direction with Fenris, and a hybrid could help allieviate that issue. 

Modifié par Palipride47, 01 novembre 2012 - 03:45 .

[Allan Schumacher]

I find it curious that Bioware doesn't know what's going on in their own games.

I do know what's going on in the game. Anders responds with +10 Rivalry points during that conversation if the player has historically taken diplomatic responses to Anders.

I also fully understand that, if the player's goal is to maximize Anders' friendship score, that this penalty is wholly insignificant in that it barely even measures as a blip.

I find it curious that people criticize us for having an NPC behave in a certain way in response to a player action and somehow taking offense to the idea that Anders didn't take it personally, all the while it ultimately has no significant bearing on whether or not you can become friends with Anders.

[jillabender]

Hi David, this is a bit off-topic, but I just wanted to say that I've enjoyed reading your thoughts about the friendship/rivalry system on these forums.

I really liked the fact that the friendship/rivalry system in DA2 allowed us to antagonize companion characters to a degree without getting fewer interactions with them as a result.

One of the few things I found to be an issue with the way the friendship/rivalry system was handled was that the need to accumulate enough friendship or rivalry points to complete either relationship path sometimes made it a bit difficult to consistently portray a character who agreed with a companion character about one issue, but disagreed on another issue.

Also, as others have pointed out, it sometimes felt a bit inappropriate to earn respectful rivalry with a character for choices that felt more as though they should have earned the character's hatred instead (for example, earning rivalry points with Varric for betraying Fenris to Danarius, or with Fenris for telling him that Orana will be useful as a slave).

However, those are minor problems for me, and from what you've said, it sounds as though you already have ideas for improving the friendship/rivalry system to make it feel a bit more natural.

(By the way, feel free to let me know if you don't want me to address you by your first name – I've done it unconsciously, but it occurred to me afterward that I probably should have asked.)

Modifié par jillabender, 01 novembre 2012 - 04:16 .

[Foolsfolly]

David Gaider wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...
assuming F/R remains for DA3, which seems likely

It won't, or not quite. Mechanically it'll work the same, but it won't exist as a gating mechanism for interactions and gaining/losing it will be done in the manner of DAO's approval rather than being tied (mostly) to a single character issue.

Since I have no point of reference for anything DA3...

So for example Fenris rivalry (or whatever it is) points wouldn't be tied to mages and slaves. It could be earned by ... what? Just a case by case thing? Like saving Zevran gave you Dislike in front of Alistair but that didn't mean he disliked saving people on some ethical grounds just that he didn't like the idea of saving a guy who was/is getting paid to kill Grey Wardens.

[TheJediSaint]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I find it curious that Bioware doesn't know what's going on in their own games.

I do know what's going on in the game. Anders responds with +10 Rivalry points during that conversation if the player has historically taken diplomatic responses to Anders.

I also fully understand that, if the player's goal is to maximize Anders' friendship score, that this penalty is wholly insignificant in that it barely even measures as a blip.

I find it curious that people criticize us for having an NPC behave in a certain way in response to a player action and somehow taking offense to the idea that Anders didn't take it personally, all the while it ultimately has no significant bearing on whether or not you can become friends with Anders.

At least for me, it wasn't Ander's reaction that bothered me.  It was Hawke coming off harsher than I intended when I chose the broken heart symbol.  I'm not saying that Anders shouldn't have gained rivalry points for Hawke rebuffing his advances, I just would've  liked Hawke's line to be a bit softer.

Modifié par TheJediSaint, 01 novembre 2012 - 03:52 .

[David Gaider]

Palipride47 wrote...
The debate on the bi aspect sometimes relates to "realism" and the people who argue against "bisexual" characters for "realism" do so under the justification that they know how bisexuality/ human nature in general works.

It's not realism, however. It's meta-gaming. They know how the character would react differently if their PC was a different gender, so try to apply that as working the same for all versions of the character... making the romances all objectively bisexual.

Which, even if that were true, I'm not certain what the big deal is. So what if they are all essentially bisexual? So what? Are we really going to try to apply statistical analysis to a group of oddballs and outcasts who already special in an alarming variety of ways from just about everyone else you meet? Truth is, many of the people objecting are really objecting to the idea of bisexuality itself as being "weird", like it's a non-choice and indicative of indecisiveness and not really a character trait at all... so thus best made rare (and confined solely to hot women, if I get the gist of most of the commentary, presumably because two women making out is always cool so long as there's at least one man watching) if it's present at all.

At best I can agree with the idea of the whole notion of subjective sexuality (subjective in the larger sense, since really only Isabela and, to a lesser degree, Anders even discuss their sexuality) being less than ideal from a holistic viewpoint. Some people want the characters to discuss their sexuality more, or just like the idea of characters having a more set sexuality in all instances (ignoring the idea that bisexuality itself is "too rare to be realistic"). As I've said before, given enough resources I'd happily do a broader array of romances with different sexualities as ME3 did. We may even do that-- I've not really said what the DA3 plan is. Regardless, if that's not the case then fairness and fun gameplay win out over meta-gaming preferences. Hands down.

And sometimes it is just plain old homophobia.

Not always, but yes-- sometimes it really is. Dressed up as other arguments, and wearing those arguments like an ill-fitting muumuu, but I guess nobody likes to admit they have terrible fashion sense. That would be gauche.

Modifié par David Gaider, 01 novembre 2012 - 03:56 .

[jillabender]

David Gaider wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...
assuming F/R remains for DA3, which seems likely

It won't, or not quite. Mechanically it'll work the same, but it won't exist as a gating mechanism for interactions and gaining/losing it will be done in the manner of DAO's approval rather than being tied (mostly) to a single character issue.

I hadn't seen this when I made my earlier post, but that approach sounds very promising –  it sounds as though you're moving toward making the friendship/rivalry gains more situational, which could help to address the minor issues I had with the friendship/rivalry system in DA2. I'll be looking forward to hearing more once development is further along!

[Maria Caliban]

David Gaider wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...
assuming F/R remains for DA3, which seems likely

It won't, or not quite. Mechanically it'll work the same, but it won't exist as a gating mechanism for interactions and gaining/losing it will be done in the manner of DAO's approval rather than being tied (mostly) to a single character issue.

I ended up liking DA II's F/R far more than I thought I would after I got over my fear of rivalry. While you might not have been completely satisfied with the results, I thought it was a real step forward in companion interaction.

I'm interested in seeing what you do with DA:I

Will you have a selection of companion specific quests like in DA 2? I really liked them, though I think the shifting of dialogue from general conversations to quests might have thrown some people.

[David Gaider]

Maria Caliban wrote...
Will you have a selection of companion specific quests like in DA 2? I really liked them, though I think the shifting of dialogue from general conversations to quests might have thrown some people.

I don't think we'll have as many companion quests as we did in DA2, no. On the whole I thought the companion quests worked far better as character development than just talking to a follower back in their base, but it seems some people really missed that and I can see a certain loss in agency so we're likely to move a lot of that content back into their personal interactions.

I know some people will ask "why can't you do both?" ... to which my response would be "because this isn't Talking To Followers: The Game", despite how much some people seem to think that's what it should be.

[jillabender]

Maria Caliban wrote…

Will you have a selection of companion specific quests like in DA 2? I really liked them, though I think the shifting of dialogue from general conversations to quests might have thrown some people.

I enjoyed the interactions during the companion quests in DA2, but I did find myself wishing for opportunities to have more casual interactions with the companion characters. I've already made a thread on that topic, though, so I'll avoid rambling on about it here.

http://social.biowar...7664/1#14297664

Modifié par jillabender, 01 novembre 2012 - 04:14 .

[TheJediSaint]

David Gaider wrote...

I know some people will ask "why can't you do both?" ... to which my response would be "because this isn't Talking To Followers: The Game", despite how much some people seem to think that's what it should be.

Would calling it "Killing stuff with swords, magic, daggers, etc...With story! And bonus talky content!: The Game", be more accurate?

Actually, forget my suggestion.  Dragon Age works fine. 

Carry on.

[Foolsfolly]

David Gaider wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...
Will you have a selection of companion specific quests like in DA 2? I really liked them, though I think the shifting of dialogue from general conversations to quests might have thrown some people.

I don't think we'll have as many companion quests as we did in DA2, no. On the whole I thought the companion quests worked far better as character development than just talking to a follower back in their base, but it seems some people really missed that and I can see a certain loss in agency so we're likely to move a lot of that content back into their personal interactions.

I know some people will ask "why can't you do both?" ... to which my response would be "because this isn't Talking To Followers: The Game", despite how much some people seem to think that's what it should be.

Loss of agency? Isn't talking through an issue and undertaking a mission to resolve that issue still resolving the issue? Just with punches? Especially if they still have "Resolve the issue or ignore the issue" types of choices.

Eh, whatever. Plenty of people will be happy to hear there's more talking.

[Vandicus]

I haven't read the whole thread or all of what's being talked about at the moment, but assuming you had significantly more resources Mr. Gaider, would the kind of enhanced selectivity such as mentioned in the OP be a thing you'd consider?

[Palipride47]

David Gaider wrote...

So what if they are all essentially bisexual?So what?  ....

....Truth is, many of the people objecting are really objecting to the idea of bisexuality itself as being "weird", like it's a non-choice and indicative of indecisiveness and not really a character trait at all...  so thus best made rare (and confined solely to hot women, if I get the gist of most of the commentary, presumably because two women making out is always cool so long as there's at least one man watching) if it's present at all....

...Regardless, if that's not the case then fairness and fun gameplay win out over meta-gaming preferences. Hands down.

The first parts = a stereotype I know and encounter way too often (being one of those supposedly "indecisive" people myself, which is why I get so defensive in the first place)

Second part= Why I like Bioware so much. Seriously, they are one of the only major companies that have head writers that put thought into things like this, and prove time and again that you don't need to feed the feeling of exclusion for tens of thousands of people to make money. Gamers are not solely greasy, white teenage boys, despite what everyone everywhere (inlcuding game developers to excuse their exclusion of things like women) says. 

(I cut out a good chunck for conciseness, not to discount everything else) 

Modifié par Palipride47, 01 novembre 2012 - 04:14 .

[TEWR]

David Gaider wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...
assuming F/R remains for DA3, which seems likely

It won't, or not quite. Mechanically it'll work the same, but it won't exist as a gating mechanism for interactions and gaining/losing it will be done in the manner of DAO's approval rather than being tied (mostly) to a single character issue.

Hmm... I see. Sort of. I think. Maybe. Possibly. Kinda.

So there will be two aspects to the relationship as DAII had, but the actual sequence of getting there will be different. So while say Anders may give Friendship for being Pro-Mage/Pro-AbominAnders, he won't only give Friendship for those things.

Well, really mostly give Friendship, but meh...

So if I were to give him a cat a la Awakening, he'd go "Yay!". But if I gave him that cat only to turn around and say "I'm giving it to Merrill. Neener neener neener" he'd start to pout and sob and write a manifesto on why Mages should have cats.

To which Justice/Vengeance would blow up an animal pound, citing it as oppression against the animals and that they must fight against their tyrannical masters!

Um... yeah.

That aside, Anders might also give me Friendship for... being a suave hero to the damsel in distress, or baking a pie, or whatever. Is that more or less correct? The meter will remain, but the progression will not be tied to the major issues of the character primarily (though they'd still influence the meter)? 

All in all, I'll gladly wait for more information, as the F/R meter was certainly of the few things I liked about DAII.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 01 novembre 2012 - 04:28 .

[Palipride47]

David Gaider wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...
Will you have a selection of companion specific quests like in DA 2? I really liked them, though I think the shifting of dialogue from general conversations to quests might have thrown some people.

I don't think we'll have as many companion quests as we did in DA2, no. On the whole I thought the companion quests worked far better as character development than just talking to a follower back in their base, but it seems some people really missed that and I can see a certain loss in agency so we're likely to move a lot of that content back into their personal interactions.

I know some people will ask "why can't you do both?" ... to which my response would be "because this isn't Talking To Followers: The Game", despite how much some people seem to think that's what it should be.

WHAAAAATTTTT?!!!! IZ NOT????!!!!!!

But I get that "lose illusion of player agency" = "rage" (like, arrghh, my quest book says I have to talk to Aveline now)

I'm currous about how the approval system will be now especially since:
1. No more "gated" interaction (i.e. Questioning Beliefs)
2. More "approval" vs. "f/r" and what that means for consistency in action and speech (i.e. must I resume "kissing up" to Morrigan and Wynne to keep them both on my team?)

EDIT: nvm, I'll wait for more details later in development

Modifié par Palipride47, 01 novembre 2012 - 04:25 .

[David Gaider]

Foolsfolly wrote...
Loss of agency? Isn't talking through an issue and undertaking a mission to resolve that issue still resolving the issue? Just with punches? Especially if they still have "Resolve the issue or ignore the issue" types of choices.

No, I think the issue is basically that people treat the companion quests as just "quests"... the same as any other quest you get, and not really having anything to do with getting to know the follower. Or, more significantly, they see the lack of the many questions you could ask in DAO and say "I didn't get to talk to my follower". Some even take it to "I didn't get to know my follower", even though you have three major quests you most certainly didn't get in DAO (and I thought those were far better ways to get to know a character than just asking them questions, and a way of providing them an arc throughout the plot).

So I would ultimately disregard all of that were it not for the agency issue... meaning that people receive quests, including the follower quests. They never arise as a result of your direction. So that, combined with the fact that you were also informed whenever followers had something new to say, meant that many players felt that they didn't have a great deal of involvement in the relationship... it was the follower directing everything. That's not quite correct, but it's a perception that likely informed some of the other comments I noted in the last paragraph. Those people are trying to describe what's lacking, and while I don't think they're hitting the mark it's not because nothing was lacking. Therefore some juggling of the resource allocation is justified, even if I'll miss having all the companion quests.

And all that is really off topic for this thread, so I'll leave this particular discussion at that.

Modifié par David Gaider, 01 novembre 2012 - 04:26 .

[Maria Caliban]

David Gaider wrote...

I don't think we'll have as many companion quests as we did in DA2, no. On the whole I thought the companion quests worked far better as character development than just talking to a follower back in their base, but it seems some people really missed that and I can see a certain loss in agency so we're likely to move a lot of that content back into their personal interactions.

I know some people will ask "why can't you do both?" ... to which my response would be "because this isn't Talking To Followers: The Game", despite how much some people seem to think that's what it should be.

That's unfortunate, but I suspected that might happen. I also enjoyed the more casual fireside chats though.

Modifié par Maria Caliban, 01 novembre 2012 - 04:27 .