93 réponses à ce sujet

[Spankoman]

I never did Miss Disapproval because of the sour faces she always made at me.

[Bernhardtbr]

Hoenstly, ir depends on the person playing.

Often people reload if they got disapproval, not because of the chance of betrayal etc, but because of the stats bonus of approval (and +6 magic or strength is A LOT). Others are the type that keep playing and seldom reload, and for those kind of people then the disapproval system was excellent. However those are a minority.

The problem, as always, is reloading screwing the balance of choices. Why make specific dialogue if 99% people will try to have >50 approval with every companion? That´s why Mass Effect has Paragon/Renegade and DA 2 Rivalry. There isn´t really a malus for either choice.

Modifié par Bernhardtbr, 13 novembre 2012 - 12:51 .

[Althix]

oh yes, it makes you feel that npcs are persons with some dignity and level of morality rather than mindless sheeps who will follow you anywhere.

[Big I]

I think rivalry was applied inconsistently, which is why I didn't like it. Sebastian, Isabella and Merrill all had rivalry paths that led to them altering their views in a way reminisicent of DA:O hardening, whereas everyone elses rivalry boiled down to disapproval. Anders rails against you being anti-mage even if you're not, Fenris hates you, and Aveline attacks you and then never brings it up again.


My suggestion for DA3 is go back to disapproval/approval and give all companions a "hardening" quest where the PC can if they want change their worldview.

[Wulfram]

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...

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.

You don't have to make it complicated if you don't want to. 

You could just have two paths like you do in DA2.  Friendship/Rivalry decides what path you're on, Approval decides how far along they are.  Ideally you might have a neutral path too, but since F/R can now be focused more specifically on one issue I think that's unnecessary necessary.  Disapprove doesn't get all that much dialogue because it means they plain don't like you and thus aren't all that interested in talking.

[Hadea]

I liked the rivalry/friendship system better, but I do think there should have been a few select dialogue choices that would trigger the companion to outright walk out on you.

[randomcheeses]

Disaproval never went away. It was still there in DA2. If you were trying to befriend, say, Anders, rivalry points functioned as disapproval by dropping your friendship and vice versa if you were trying to rival him, but still be pro-mage.

It would work best if you had two different sliders in the character screen, a bit like renagade and paragon points in ME1. Earning one didn't leave you with less of the other. Then the reactions throughout and at the end of the game could be altered to reflect whether the party member considers the PC more of a friend or more of a rival, with diffrences depending on how rival-y or how friend-y you choose to be.

[Travie]

I get the feeling I would've liked the Rivalry system better if DA2 was good enough to justify multiple playthroughs.

As things were I just couldn't sit through another 30 hours just to see how a different character would interact with his/her companions.

[J.C. Blade]

Rivalry added nothing in DA2 save for minor bonuses to the companion in question and possibility for hate-sex. Nothing else. The whole group was still willing to travel with Hawke, fight for Hawke, die for Hawke, four of which were more than willing to sleep with Hawke even with the red bar in full glow... There was nothing antagonistic about the relationship. It was friendship - with minor issues and differences that remained unresolved for ten years.

Not to mention it was implemented so badly that I had no idea why Merril thought that my Hawke was against what she was doing when every single conversation I took with her was supportive. Or why Anders thought that mage Hawke was supporting the Templars despite helping the mages at every turn.

[Iosev]

Travie wrote...

I get the feeling I would've liked the Rivalry system better if DA2 was good enough to justify multiple playthroughs.

Honestly, the friendship/rivalry system in Dragon Age 2 is probably the main reason why I replayed the game so many times.

For example, I have a freedom-loving, order-averse mage who became friends with Isabela, Varric, Anders, and Merrill, and became rivals with Fenris, Aveline, Sebastian, and Carver.  On another playthrough, I have a faithful Andrastrian, Loyalist-like mage who became friends with Aveline, Fenris, Sebastian, and Carver, and became rivals with Isabela, Varric, Anders, and Merrill (essentially, the opposite of the first playthrough I mentioned).  Despite playing as a mage both times, I personally felt that I experienced a different story, based on how I role-played my character and interacted with his/her companions.

[draken-heart]

I do not miss it, but do not hate it either, as long as DA 3 does not get Jade Empire/Mass Effect morality scales.

Modifié par draken-heart, 14 novembre 2012 - 04:27 .

[Han Yolo]

The system in DAO somehow made me feel forced to tell the characters what they wanted to hear. Obviously no one actually did force me but that's not the point. It's the choice of either not roleplaying or missing content and I don't like that choice. I don't want to be punished for roleplaying - punished in the sense of missing content, not in the sense of bad consequences. Disagreeing with someone did not add anything to the game really.
Regarding this, DA2 was a major improvement. Not really good either, but still a step in the right direction.
So no, I did not miss disapproval.

[Yalision]

Nope. I prefer the new system, where you receive different reactions based on your playthrough, not abandonment.

[ShallowlLife9871]

I prefure the DAO method. it made me feel as though i really got to know my comapions rather then " I'll Follow you regardless" set up in DA2.

[Kail Ashton]

i'm going to say no, friendship/rivalry was vastly superior, disaproval was just annoying and forced me to compromise or not use DA:O companions in various scenarios *glares at morrigan* i'd rather not be punished with pissed off companions who'll eventually just up & leave if i don't do everything they want

[cindercatz]

I like divorcing certain aspects of the relationship from the guage (like romance, 'crisis points'), and I like the idea of a two guage system consisting of a personal relationship guage that functions like friend/rivalry, and an issue alignment gauge that determines if they consider you an ally or an enemy at different points in the game.

The personal guage determines what kind of interactions they have with you, which also change if you're romancing them (meaning not just dialogue, but also physicality). So rival romance is still possible. The alignment guage determines, when a crisis point pops up (like freeing slaves, major religious conflict, etc.), if they'll support you or betray you, attempt an assassination, sell information out from under you, things like that.

You could end up with a high personal and low alignment bar, or low personal and high alignment bar, for instance. This would allow for certain companions to flat out betray you, their good friend, because you happen to fall on opposite sides of whatever conflict is most important to them, or to stick with you, their detested rival, because they are really on the same side. It allows for a wider range of potential interactions, and it always makes sense. It should even be possible, I think, for a fully romanced companion to turn on you if you come down on opposite sides of their major issue, so you could end up with a fractured romance.

I don't want the player to be able to successfully kill companions again though, unless it's a major story point that calls for it. You can try and fail if you like, or they can try and fail, but unless it's a major story crux kind of thing, no randomly killing companions.

That sounds like the best system to me.

[Squeeze the Fish]

I didn't necessarily "miss" it, because I think it was still there in a way. That "middle" area between rivalry and BFF, felt like the "disapproval" zone for me. The companions were way less likely to be persuaded/agree with you in this zone.  Of course, this could be looked at the “not yet converted” zone which doesn’t really add anything to the autonomy OP was referring to, but I tend to subscribe to the former classification.
At least, that’s my thought.

*EDIT: I really like the potential of what cindercatz suggested above.

*DOUBLE EDIT: Like, really like.

Modifié par Squeeze the Fish, 14 novembre 2012 - 05:10 .

[cindercatz]

Squeeze the Fish wrote...

*EDIT: I really like the potential of what cindercatz suggested above.

*DOUBLE EDIT: Like, really like.

Thanks!
I'm hoping for something like that in DA3, even if it's partly invisible. An aliance meter might be, would make some sense. There might also be only a few choices that determine your stance, and then scenarios like I described might still result. Dunno, but I'm optimistic there.

[brushyourteeth]

So many great thoughts! Soo many...

What would you guys think of a situation like what PsychoBlonde suggested, where your character's response to an event would work essentially as an invisible toggle to decide whether you have rivalry or disapproval? Because friendship/approval interactions essentially amounted to the same thing.

Example: Anders. Expressing your distrust of mages would set you on the rivalry path, as normal. However, doing something like allowing Ser Alrik to go free would then convert all your rivalry points into disapproval points, because he's had enough.

Any thoughts on that?

I have to say, if there was one thing that really annoyed me about the way rivalry/friendship worked in DAII, it's what others have said about your companions making the assumption that you approved or disapproved of their actions based on how they felt about YOU.

Like how rivalry with Anders meant you must have mages and want them locked up. Or Friendship with Merrill meant she'd think you supported her Eluvian endeavor. I'd definitely love to see something more intuitive in the next game.