93 réponses à ce sujet

[xsdob]

ScarMK wrote...

It amazes me to no end at how people make it sound as if the gifts weren't optional to use and held guns to them point blank demanding the player to give them way.

It does if you want any companions to be around you during the battle, excpet alistor, who leaves after the landsmet.

So going it alone, yay, that's totally a good thing for a roleplay game to do and not a "punishment" of any kind.

But if your in to that sort of thing, alright than. I just don't line getting a major disadvantage over simply having a viewpoint.

Modifié par xsdob, 12 novembre 2012 - 07:57 .

[PsychoBlonde]

brushyourteeth wrote...

I also felt like the rivalry system was confusing, in that some of your choices felt like they'd naturally lead a companion to respect you more than gush over you, and that was great -- but other choices were so ridiculously rude, mean, or contrary to the very core of what those characters stood for that it should have resulted in something like disapproval instead of rivalry. I feel like that was a big part of why people associated rivalry with disapproval, or punishment.

This is an excellent point and a large part of why I felt the rivalry/friend system didn't quite work as it was implemented.  It was a good idea, but it needed . . . something else.  I do think it really needs to be tied to a secondary system that tracks you just outright being a jerk to them.  I suggested having a "corruption" meter that has varying effects for different companions if you choose to do things that are just plainly awful.

There's a problem with this, though--it amounts to reintroducing a good/evil meter into the game.

Now that I think about it, a much better system would probably be to have the "meter" operate like the DA:O approval/disapproval meter, and Rival/Friend is a toggle instead of a meter--a toggle that can only be flipped by certain important events. This would allow for much more complex and nuanced behavior triggers.  Approval level would determine things like whether or not they're willing to confide their secrets or turn on you, much like in DA:O, whereas rival/friend would determine the [i]content of their response.

In most interactions the rival/friend switch probably wouldn't make that much of a difference, although it'd be cool if there were occasional moments where it did--if you kick a beggar, someone who disapproves of that action and is a rival might yell at you, whereas a friend might just hand the beggar some of your money.

I think this might be a functional way to work it--it would ALLOW for more behavior options without REQUIRING the writers to try and balance multiple variables for EVERY situation.

[TK514]

It's worth repeating that a lot of the confusion about friendship good/rivalry bad could be mitigated by getting rid of blue and red and being a bit more explicit in early educational tooltips.

[nightscrawl]

brushyourteeth wrote...

Don't misunderstand me -- I thought the friendship/rivalry meter was really cool. We've all had that buddy that has this completely different way of looking at the world, and we love 'em to pieces even if we just don't get it. I really appreciated that view of relationships in DAII.

But there's just something awesome about having companions who can flat-out hate you. Who will leave if they find you disgusting enough. Who might even attack you just because you're so interolerable. And to have reactions to your choices that result in "OMG that was deplorable" rather than just "Oh, that Hawke!"

I really enjoyed the F/R dynamic relationships that DA2 offered; it really helped to keep the game fresh for me. That said, I do agree with your points here. It would be nice if they could have a combination of the two systems.

I also felt like the rivalry system was confusing, in that some of your choices felt like they'd naturally lead a companion to respect you more than gush over you, and that was great -- but other choices were so ridiculously rude, mean, or contrary to the very core of what those characters stood for that it should have resulted in something like disapproval instead of rivalry. I feel like that was a big part of why people associated rivalry with disapproval, or punishment.
 
Rivalry didn't just come from sticking to your guns - it also came from just being a complete jerk.

I agree, but I think that this comes from the game not being sophisticated enough on the back-end (this is NOT meant as a diss to the devs). The main example of this is how with Anders the friendship assumes you are pro-mage and supportive of his efforts, while rivalry assumes you are anti-mage and are trying to counteract his efforts. The opposite is true for the Fenris relationships, with a stronger emphasis being placed on the "rival is pro-mage" viewpoint. I found that very frustrating.

*EDIT: I also felt like DA:O did a great job of establishing what was, essentially, the perfect rivalry relationship with Sten. There was no way that guy was going to agree with your core values. But he respected and admired you in the end. I'd love to see more characters that you just *can't* convince to love you, but you can still have an amazing friendship with them.

Great point!

Modifié par nightscrawl, 12 novembre 2012 - 09:01 .

[nightscrawl]

TK514 wrote...

It's worth repeating that a lot of the confusion about friendship good/rivalry bad could be mitigated by getting rid of blue and red and being a bit more explicit in early educational tooltips.

I agree completely.

[thebigbad1013]

I didn't miss it at all, mainly because disapproval only led to the companion leaving and that was that. I much preferred the friendship/rivalry system of DA2.

[ScarMK]

xsdob wrote...

ScarMK wrote...

It amazes me to no end at how people make it sound as if the gifts weren't optional to use and held guns to them point blank demanding the player to give them way.

It does if you want any companions to be around you during the battle, excpet alistor, who leaves after the landsmet.

So going it alone, yay, that's totally a good thing for a roleplay game to do and not a "punishment" of any kind.

But if your in to that sort of thing, alright than. I just don't line getting a major disadvantage over simply having a viewpoint.

     The only companion that comes to mind that you have to "work for" is Morrigan.  You can't please everyone and not everyone will share your views and be OK with them.  DA2 tried this and we ended up with Fenris romancing Pro-slaver/Pro-mage Hawke or Anders romancing/interacting with a pro Templar Hawke.  It just makes no sense other than to have “No one feeling left out”.


     Alistair only leaves at the landsmeet if he was exiled/executed or left because you chose Loghain over him.  That has nothing to do with approval/disapproval as he still leaves even if you're in a romance with him.   Even from a RP point of view, he views it as betrayal.  You’re allowing the man who killed his father figure into an exclusive order he believes is a privilege to be in.

[ThatGamerWithSouvlaki285]

I prefer the DA2 system but their both flawed in their way. But i think the should is not make the system visible as in dont put visible meters and prompt and have you figure out their opinion of you by the way they interact to you. The meters make it to easy to make a character that fits to the way you want each player to react to you rather than making a certain type of character and seeing the consquances of being that sort of character. I hope i am being clear wiith what i mean.

[cogsandcurls]

I don't miss disapproval one bit. Rivalry felt like an alternative path; not getting a good way up the approval scale felt like failure.

Not to mention it meant RP decisions resulted in loss of content. (No I-love-you-but-disagree-with-you romances, no chance to have Alistair actually mull it over and maybe give you telling him he needs you to buck up some thought, missing companion quests, missing stat boosts). Friendship/Rivalry worked far better for me.

[Gileadan]

Disapproval was a good concept. Remove the gift spam, make approval/disapproval gains more sensible, and you're all set. For example: there is a short time of "first impression", where you have just met a new person, and where everything you do or say will have a big impact on their first opinion of you. Likewise, after knowing someone for a few years, you shouldn't get any approval changes because they didn't like a joke you made.

Rivalry never made much sense to me. A full-rival companion hated my guts but still stuck around? Why fight at the side of a person that you disagree with so utterly and completely? I suspect rivalry was mostly there for the hate-sex, eh...

[draken-heart]

Gileadan wrote...

Disapproval was a good concept. Remove the gift spam, make approval/disapproval gains more sensible, and you're all set. For example: there is a short time of "first impression", where you have just met a new person, and where everything you do or say will have a big impact on their first opinion of you. Likewise, after knowing someone for a few years, you shouldn't get any approval changes because they didn't like a joke you made.

Rivalry never made much sense to me. A full-rival companion hated my guts but still stuck around? Why fight at the side of a person that you disagree with so utterly and completely? I suspect rivalry was mostly there for the hate-sex, eh...

Rivalry was more of a "we disagree with each other on what 'I' think is the most impotant thing, but I respect you."

People need to quit thinking of Rivalry as hate. You can disagree with someone on the hot button issues, but still value them as a person.

[deuce985]

I do kinda miss it. I always wanted it to extend further than the current system. Like, less linear situations where they would just completely oppose me. Those situations are scripted and I want a system that isn't. I doubt I'll ever see something like that because it would probably be a development nightmare. It would be nice to see a different outcome in a totally random situation.

A simple Tevinter Imperium slaver encounter can make Fenris completely oppose me in the situation based on approval. Yet, if his approval is high enough, me siding with the TI encounter might make him stay. He might start to question me at that point but still respect me because his approval is so high. I didn't like how in DAO Leliana opposes you no matter what if you destroy the Sacred Ashes. I didn't do that for evil purposes but to prevent someone from coming in to exploit the potential power they could abuse from that. Why couldn't I let Leliana see it from my view? You would think if she respected me enough, she would at least hear me out. I could understand if she totally didn't approve of any decision I made until that point...

Bioware will never do this though. They don't seem to have a philosophy on punishing the player with unforeseen consequences very often. I wouldn't even say what happened at the end of DA2 or the Sacred Ashes was something unforeseen. It was pretty obvious it was coming if you picked one or the other based on their personality.

I want my companions to show their personality more. Why should they agree with everything I do? Shouldn't they have their place in my world? If they feel I'm doing something wrong, shouldn't they react to it more? Why do they have to be so static inside my story? It's like if I jumped off a bridge, I feel my companions would do it just because I did. That's not how it should work...

Modifié par deuce985, 12 novembre 2012 - 11:42 .

[deuce985]

To further that concept, I really liked how I could "harden" Leliana. You could actually change her perspective on approval/disapproval. She listened to me and actually saw everything from where I was standing. That was something I really enjoyed in DAO...

I wouldn't mind seeing gifts go away completely and force the player to have conversations like these with their companions if you want to start swaying their opinions. Maybe even "harden" them like Leliana...

People can change with a good talk. It happened with Leliana.

[frostajulie]

I missed it for the insight it provided into the character. I did not miss out of character disapproval such as Zev in return to Ostegar. I feel like the rivalry system is just a system of garnering dislike without any consequences at all. So I definitely miss the consequences of disapproval from DAO.

[vanom66]

I want the aspact of it back . their should something on the lines of enemies .

[Kileyan]

I thought the rivalry system could have been utilized for specific characters where some sort of story telling reason made it make sense. Maybe used for specific characters that had to be kept in the party and "loyal" for ease of story telling as them being expected to carry on demanded parts of the plot.

As a blanket system for every companion, I found it wasn't a very good concept.

Gileadan wrote...
Rivalry never made much sense to me. A full-rival companion hated my guts but still stuck around? Why fight at the side of a person that you disagree with so utterly and completely? I suspect rivalry was mostly there for the hate-sex, eh...

Nah, I suspect it was designed for the ease of the developers. It is much easier, effecient and cheaper to do plan a game around, do animations and record voice for characters who will never leave the party. It likely gets much more complicated to plan a game around an unknown roster of characters that each invidual will have available.

Although we loved the various companions that we could make leave the group or murder knife in DA:O, I bet the producers and bean counters were cringing at the amount of works that went into those characters than many never had in their party (just guessing).

[Sabariel]

Yeup. Quite often, I found it hard to believe that the companions would stick with Hawke, especially my MegaJerkHawke. DA3 needs "crisis points" again.

Modifié par Sabariel, 13 novembre 2012 - 01:27 .

[Arppis]

It's pretty negative. And then you have to worry about your team mates backstabbing you or leaving your squad or something. So I just ended up asskissing them because I didn't want to lose any content.

Was bad in that way.

[WazzuMan]

Thanks to the approval/disapproval system in DAO, I'm not even going to bother with Zevran any more. I'll either kill him or let him run off, either way I won't miss him and his ninjamances.

[Celtic Latino]

Personally the rivalry system is the same thing except you're allowed to have fundamental disagreements and romances with companions.

I hated Origins' approval system. Either play out of character and say certain dialogue to get a stat boost or ideal romance or risk them leaving the party (or sitting out) just because you can't disagree with them. DA2 had bonuses whether you were friends or enemies. Do I think DA2's system needs a bit of refining? Sure! But it was a massive improvement over Origins' system.

[Gileadan]

draken-heart wrote...

Rivalry was more of a "we disagree with each other on what 'I' think is the most impotant thing, but I respect you."

People need to quit thinking of Rivalry as hate. You can disagree with someone on the hot button issues, but still value them as a person.

Yes, I get what you mean, I just don't see where the respect comes from or is expressed in the things you do to rival certain companions.

To rival Fenris, you have to be chummy with slavers and mages, i.e. the people he blames for all the crap that happened to him. To rival Anders, you have to tell him that all mages should go to a detention block and that he himself is just a frigging abomination anyway. And for Merrill you basically sabotage her most important project.

It appears to me that this simply shows that you don't have any common ground with those companions if you rival them. How do the actions that gain you rivalry also gain their respect? Which other actions gain their respect, so much that even such fundamental disagreements don't make them pack up and hit the road? I just don't see that in the game, and it makes rivalry look like another form of disapproval to me, except with a reward at the end instead of the companion leaving... which makes little sense to me.

[Shadow of Light Dragon]

Auintus wrote...

Someone suggested an axis of approval/disapproval and friendship/rivalry. Something about "view of you" vs. "view of your opinions", if I remember right. Sounded good.

Any dual- or multiple-axis will sound good, but it would be a complete and utter bastard to code.

Approve/Friend
Approve/Rival
Disapprove/Friend
Disapprove/Rival
Neutral/Friend
Neutral/Rival
Disapprove/Neutral
Approve/Neutral
Neutral/Neutral

That's at least nine variations of any situation where a 'standing check' would be required, for every single companion. Is it possible? Yes. Would be be awesome? If done right, yes. Would it be a lot of work to get the dialogue logic code right? Hell, yes.

Edit: As an aside, one of my friends who finished DA2 bemoaned that he romanced Merrill but had to be Friends with her to do so. When I told him that Rivalry meant you disagreed with each other but could still be in a romance, he was shocked. Part of the problem with the system is that it wasn't properly explained and people anticipated it would work the same as DA:O. The fact that it was a very similar sliding scale red-to-blue thing didn't help either.

Modifié par Shadow of Light Dragon, 13 novembre 2012 - 07:00 .

[Saraphial]

I honestly hate both approval systems altogether. The first system made you kiss everyone's ass or risk having them leave/ miss out on content. The second system didn't fix the problem, just put a new spin on it: you either choose an extremely polar position when bringing a specific follower along (very difficult to do on your 1st playthrough because you don't know which quests enable you to take certain positions, and thus possibly miss out on vital approval/rivalry points) or risk them leaving/ miss out on content. Both systems were frustrating and made dealing with your companions a hassle.

In my opinion, they should do away with both systems completely. I think Mass Effect had it right by simply making it so the content you receive and your protagonists relationship with a certain companion progresses based on whether or not you choose to interact with that companion frequently or not.

[Blight Nug]

steph285 wrote...

I prefer the DA2 system but their both flawed in their way. But i think the should is not make the system visible as in dont put visible meters and prompt and have you figure out their opinion of you by the way they interact to you. The meters make it to easy to make a character that fits to the way you want each player to react to you rather than making a certain type of character and seeing the consquances of being that sort of character. I hope i am being clear wiith what i mean.

I do like having a meter that tells me how close I am with my companions. I just don't want to be punished for not being extreme. I didn't like the ME paragon and renegade system as I though it was riduclous to punish me for not comforming to one extreme or the other. It simply doesn't make sense to take away certain dialogue choices only because I have been too "neutral" on events that don't even related to the current event. 

As for the DA2 friendship system, I think its a good improvement from DAO, but it still had the smililar problem of ME's paragon and renegade system. We are required to be on the extreme end of the 1D spectrum to get special bonsuses from our companions or to romance them. Why do they make games that punish netural behavior? I don't get it.