76 réponses à ce sujet

[hawketheman]

 Rivalry makes no sense. I like the idea, but it doesn't work in practice.

Take Anders as an example. If you want to take the friend path with Anders you need to agree with his values and be nice to him. Makes perfect sense. If you support mages Anders will like you, because he also supports mages. Makes perfect sense. If you also support blood mages Anders will like you less, since Anders doesn't approve of blood magic. If you are rude to Anders he will like you less ...

The rivalry path is another story. The idea, as I understand it, is that by consistantly disagreeing with a character, you can change their mind about stuff. That makes sense. If a homophobic person met a gay person, and found him to be a decent person, the homophobic person could change his views on gay people. The problem with rivalry is that it requires you to disagree with *everything* a person stands for and to be rude as well. Why will Anders rival-like you more if you support the templars, but approve of bloodmagic? That doesn't make much sense. 

[Dhiro]

Depends. I see your point in Anders' case. I thought that getting to Merrill's rivalry path was well-done: you could still be nice to her, since disagreeing with her views on blood magic and the Eluvian would rent you enough Rivalry points to unlock the path itself.

So I wouldn't say it doesn't make sense at all, but it can be improved for some characters.

[hawketheman]

Take Aveline as an example:

You play as a Robin Hood kind of character. You do not respect the law or authority, but you are a nice person who helps those in need.

or

You play as a complete hooligan that steals rapes and pillages.

Who will Aveline "rival-like" more?

[CrystaJ]

Unresolved sexual tension is the best tension.

I think there should probably be a point where rivalry turns into genuine dislike, since there is a difference between agreeing to disagree and finding someone's world viewpoint detestable to the point where they wouldn't wanna shag you no matter how many times you choose the flirt dialogue.

Modifié par CrystaJ, 27 novembre 2012 - 12:17 .

[Sol Downer]

hawketheman wrote...

Take Aveline as an example:

You play as a Robin Hood kind of character. You do not respect the law or authority, but you are a nice person who helps those in need.

or

You play as a complete hooligan that steals rapes and pillages.

Who will Aveline "rival-like" more?

You know...you're more likely to take a boot to the head from captain of the guard if you get that extreme.

[JWvonGoethe]

It seems that a lot of people resent friendship/rivalry being too difficult to achieve in many instances. For example, if you are against slavery, but pro-mage, then it is very difficult to either befriend or rival Fenris.

I wonder if, for roleplaying purposes, completely removing neutrality in the relationships would work better. So, either you are in a friendship with a companion, or are a rival, with no middle ground.

Rivalry and friendship status both resulted in companions behaving in gameplay-enhancing ways. However, if you didn't have either, the gameplay tended to suffer, such as when Isabella ran away and didn't come back. Putting more points into the friendship/rivalry meter could still result in combat advantages of course, but when it comes to narrative, I'd prefer the system to be more binary in most cases (with only the occasional difference for very high friendship/rivalry values.)

Modifié par JWvonGoethe, 27 novembre 2012 - 01:18 .

[CrystaJ]

Putting more points into the friendship/rivalry meter could still result in combat advantages of course, but when it comes to narrative, I'd prefer the system to be more binary in most cases (with only the occasional difference for very high friendship/rivalry values.)

yes plz

I've fallen +5 rivalry short of activating Questioning Belief quests before and it's a pain in the ass.

[SteveGarbage]

hawketheman wrote...

The rivalry path is another story. The idea, as I understand it, is that by consistantly disagreeing with a character, you can change their mind about stuff. That makes sense.

I think you overextend your understanding of the rivalry system. Rivalry isn't so much changing your companions minds as it is building a respectful disagreement. Rivalry isn't "I'm anti-mage but since you've been so pro-mage all the time I'm going to change." It's more of a "I'm anti-mage and you're so pro-mage. I don't agree with you and maybe never will, but I still respect and admire you as a person."

The example I always use is that in Origins — I don't agree with Sten's values instilled in him by the Qun, hence I often lose influence with him through my actions. However, I do definitely respect Sten's devotion, his reason, his faith and his battle prowess. We're not friends, but he is deserving of my respect.

That's what makes rivalry different from Origins' influence. If you companion always disagrees with you, they just lose and lose influence and are closed off, possible even leaving if you can tank the affection bar enough. In DA2, your companions may disagree, but they still have that underlying respect for you.

Friendship/rivalry is more like a church that is understanding and/or accepting of homosexuality compared to one that will shun that person or try to change them.

[Medhia Nox]

The problem comes in that people don't do this in real life.

We're not given a reason for ANY of these people to be forced together.

People of such radically differing viewpoints do NOT form groups in the real world.

The only time change is possible is when it's forced - and in the game, we really aren't given any organic reason other than: "Adventuring group."

[JWvonGoethe]

Medhia Nox wrote...

The problem comes in that people don't do this in real life.

We're not given a reason for ANY of these people to be forced together.

People of such radically differing viewpoints do NOT form groups in the real world.

The only time change is possible is when it's forced - and in the game, we really aren't given any organic reason other than: "Adventuring group."

Yes, that is something they need to fix - either by having antagonistic companions flat out refuse to join you, or by adding some more background story as to why they suddenly want to team up with someone whose views they abhor.
I think Bioware would be more comfortable with the second option. DA:O made more sense than DA2 in this regard, which is a shame since the companions were otherwise very well written in DA2.

[Helena Tylena]

I think this is an unfortunate case of gameplay vs story segregation.

[Plaintiff]

Medhia Nox wrote...

The problem comes in that people don't do this in real life.

We're not given a reason for ANY of these people to be forced together.

People of such radically differing viewpoints do NOT form groups in the real world.

The only time change is possible is when it's forced - and in the game, we really aren't given any organic reason other than: "Adventuring group."

I strongly disagree with my friends on a number of topics.

The party members all feel indebted to Hawke in one way or another, and that can be enough to secure loyalty without necessarily guaranteeing affection. Even so, some still have breaking points that will cause them to leave the party.

This is one of the major reasons why I think the time skips were a negative impact on the game; we rarely, if ever, see how the characters act when they aren't dealing with some hugely divisive issue. We see their actions for three years out of seven. That's not even half the time that they've been hanging around each other, so we have little to no idea what their relationship dynamics are really like.

[hexaligned]

I don't know, a couple of my "friends" could probably be better described as rivals. We are always competing against one another, either verbally or physically. We have things in common though, not the least of which is that we enjoy things (and people) that challenge us. Which is to say I'm not opposed to it thematically. Mechanically the writing for it could have been much better, yes.

[JWvonGoethe]

This is getting of topic, but surely a band of fighters needs to have more political cohesion and strong leadership than a group of friends does. Otherwise you get insubordination (as happened with Anders if Hawke was pro-Templar or neutral.) That is why the two kinds of groups are not comparable.

Anyway, Medhia Nox's original point was, I think, more about recruiting companions in the first place rather than staying with them.

Modifié par JWvonGoethe, 27 novembre 2012 - 04:10 .

[Dave of Canada]

I find Sebastian was the best rivalry in the game. He's always your friend no-matter what (something which I attribute to him being DLC) and rivalry/friendship are simply two different thought processes of the same character, he doesn't hate Rivalry Hawke anymore than he hates Friendship.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 27 novembre 2012 - 04:17 .

[Wulfram]

Dave of Canada wrote...

I find Sebastian was the best rivalry in the game. He's always your friend no-matter what (something which I attribute to him being DLC) and rivalry/friendship are simply two different thought processes of the same character, he doesn't hate Rivalry Hawke anymore than he hates Friendship.

It's very annoying when you're on the rivalry path and then it's all wiped out by friendship because you don't want an Exalted March to trash Kirkwall.

[Medhia Nox]

@Plaintiff: Yes - but these are people who are actively pursuing their agendas.

It's not the same as a Republican and Democrat - or a Christian and an atheist who have other similarities and are just sitting around talking out their differences. These people Isabella is a pirate - she's living her amoral lifestyle. Anders is a revolutionary (I'd use a more volatile term) - it's not like he's just talking about civil liberties. Aveline is a guard (then captain) - she's not just talking about the virtues of the law.

Did you make those friends throughout your childhood? (not sure how old you are - don't care)

These people become "allies" to Hawke out of circumstance.

For the whole first act - there's no reason for them to be considered "friends". Even Aveline who clearly moves on with her life and who probably would not be friends with a criminal Hawke after leaving Ferelden.

There are - after all - hundreds of refugees. It's not like they're the only Fereldens in the city.

I make a lot of acquaintances in my adult life - but nobody I would consider on the level of my older friendships. I am cordial with the **** and the druggie at my job out of politeness - but the job alone is the unifying factor.

I don't feel that a rival Hawke and Anders (for example) would have any reason to hang out with each other beyond necessity (which is concluded after one mission).

[Maclimes]

Dhiro wrote...

Depends. I see your point in Anders' case. I thought that getting to Merrill's rivalry path was well-done: you could still be nice to her, since disagreeing with her views on blood magic and the Eluvian would rent you enough Rivalry points to unlock the path itself.

So I wouldn't say it doesn't make sense at all, but it can be improved for some characters.

I always use those two as perfect examples of where the Friendship/Rivalry system works, and where it doesn't.

Merril worked great. Either way, you could express that you cared about her and wanted to help her. The Rivalry side was just more of a "tough love" kind of mentality. It was exactly what it should have been.

Anders, though, is a perfect example of the system failing. He has no obligation to assist you in any way, and yet will continue to stick by you even if you enslave every mage you meet, which is the EXACT opposite of his goals. His goal in life is to fight people who enslave or oppress mages (not just a goal, mind you, but demon-driven magically enforced drive), yet he loves you for doing the same. It makes no logical sense.

[TCBC_Freak]

SteveGarbage wrote...

hawketheman wrote...

The rivalry path is another story. The idea, as I understand it, is that by consistantly disagreeing with a character, you can change their mind about stuff. That makes sense.

I think you overextend your understanding of the rivalry system. Rivalry isn't so much changing your companions minds as it is building a respectful disagreement. Rivalry isn't "I'm anti-mage but since you've been so pro-mage all the time I'm going to change." It's more of a "I'm anti-mage and you're so pro-mage. I don't agree with you and maybe never will, but I still respect and admire you as a person."

The example I always use is that in Origins — I don't agree with Sten's values instilled in him by the Qun, hence I often lose influence with him through my actions. However, I do definitely respect Sten's devotion, his reason, his faith and his battle prowess. We're not friends, but he is deserving of my respect.

That's what makes rivalry different from Origins' influence. If you companion always disagrees with you, they just lose and lose influence and are closed off, possible even leaving if you can tank the affection bar enough. In DA2, your companions may disagree, but they still have that underlying respect for you.

Friendship/rivalry is more like a church that is understanding and/or accepting of homosexuality compared to one that will shun that person or try to change them.

I think what hawketheman was saying was that if it worked that way (as in, if you could change their mind), it would make sense. But it doesn't work that way and, as such, does not make sense. So I believe his point was what you've said here, more or less.

But then again maybe I'm the one who is missing hawketheman's point.

[Maria Caliban]

Medhia Nox wrote...

People of such radically differing viewpoints do NOT form groups in the real world.

Yes, they do. It's one thing if *you* can't manage to have a friendship with people who believe differently than you do, but not everyone is you.

Medhia Nox wrote...


It's not the same as a Republican and Democrat - or a Christian and an atheist who have other similarities and are just sitting around talking out their differences. These people Isabella is a pirate - she's living her amoral lifestyle. Anders is a revolutionary (I'd use a more volatile term) - it's not like he's just talking about civil liberties. Aveline is a guard (then captain) - she's not just talking about the virtues of the law.

First off, a person's viewpoint isn't the same as what they do. Being a pirate, revolutionary, or guard captain isn't a viewpoint. Believing in the rule of law, or that life is about seeking pleasure, or that everyone should be free are viewpoints.

Sometimes they conflict, but they don't have to. Aveline wants people to be happy and safe, and becomes a guard captain to further her goals. But she doesn't chase down Anders and even protects him. Why? Because he's not hurting people. The law isn't the most important thing in Aveline's viewpoint.

Modifié par Maria Caliban, 27 novembre 2012 - 06:39 .

[Medhia Nox]

@Maria Caliban: I've never seen anyone else do it either. I'm not talking acquaintances - I have a lot of them who I disagree with - but actual friends? No. Maybe I just have a different standard for the term.

So color me skeptic.

And I'm talking radically differing viewpoints like the characters here.

Disliking ice cream - and being an amoral pirate are two different things.  

Perhaps you didn't go to American high school?  (Not that I think any other nations schools are any different)

Modifié par Medhia Nox, 27 novembre 2012 - 06:37 .

[esper]

Medhia Nox wrote...

@Maria Caliban: I've never seen anyone else do it either. I'm not talking acquaintances - I have a lot of them who I disagree with - but actual friends? No. Maybe I just have a different standard for the term.

So color me skeptic.

And I'm talking radically differing viewpoints like the characters here.

I have friends like that. We argue a lot on some subjects, but respect each other.

[Medhia Nox]

@Esper: And what are the characters given to "respect" each other on?

If you have 100% rival - presumably you have "nothing" in common. 

Have a lot of friends like that do you?

Modifié par Medhia Nox, 27 novembre 2012 - 06:39 .

[hoorayforicecream]

Medhia Nox wrote...

@Maria Caliban: I've never seen anyone else do it either. I'm not talking acquaintances - I have a lot of them who I disagree with - but actual friends? No. Maybe I just have a different standard for the term.

So color me skeptic.

And I'm talking radically differing viewpoints like the characters here.

Disliking ice cream - and being an amoral pirate are two different things.  

Perhaps you didn't go to American high school?  (Not that I think any other nations schools are any different)

I have a lot of friends with widely different political and/or religious views. These can be extremely divisive in terms of their philosophies. Yet we all remain friends because we are not merely a bundle of political or religious views, but people. We have shared experiences in the past and enjoy each others' company in aspects that don't include politics or religion, and we have common ground that tie us together. Perhaps my experience is the exception rather than the rule, but I would like to think that it is not the case.