76 réponses à ce sujet

[Maria Caliban]

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

And? The world is full of amoral people. People are amoral the majority of the time.

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

I went to four different American high schools. The world is not high school.

[esper]

Maclimes wrote...

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.

You working on the asumption that Anders isn't emotionally dependant on Hawke, which he is. He is clingly onto Hawke for dear life, which is obviosuly not healthy if Hawke is anti-mage or even just anti-justice, but is not unrealistic.

[esper]

Medhia Nox wrote...

@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?

Two.

One always was we met on a working place where we had to learn to like each other, now we do, one has become that over time as we grew up.

Ironically those also my two best friends, all those I 'friend' with are those who I am am simply acqutaince with. Good colleges, comrades, but true friend I would do anything for. No. I respect that they have an opinon. Not something many people have now adays.

100 % rival is not disagreement on everything, it is disagreement on important subject. As I in real life like to discuss morality and politics and have a pretty strong opinon on these subjects, I would never get along with anyone if I did not respect that they could an opinion different than mine.

[mousestalker]

Rivalry makes a lot sense, especially in the work environment. I've had coworkers who were also rivals. We didn't hate each other and we bonded over our mutual tasks.

As for being exclusively a member of like minded people, that sounds like a very bad idea. People who do that tend to assume that either everyone else is just like them or that people who disagree with the group premise are fools. The world is not so neatly binary.

[Medhia Nox]

@Esper: You stated that you respect "something" about these people who you also share differing viewpoints with.

What are the characters given to respect each other about except "We're all constructs forced together in a game." ?

Yes - they're forced together because they are - but I think it could have felt more organic.

====

@Maria Caliban:  Yes, I'm sure the companies you work for are all egalitarian with no cliques in them what so ever.  You have a much more positive ( I would say naive) view of adulthood - as I have experienced it, it is simply a more nuanced form of high school to be honest (the presidential election is a beautiful example - being based far more on clique and popularity than any form of educated votning base).  I haven't seen this renaissance of the human development that you may have. 

It is true - those with no discernable belief structure can often float.  The less someone believes in "anything" strongly - the more they can fit into a group.  Apathy - I suppose - is a strong chameleon trait. 

I have not experienced this world of indivisive adults you describe - though I will certainly begin to look for it. 

---

My point about Isabella is that she is living her belief system... a lot of people  talk a good game about moral relativism while still retaining a fair lighter shade of grey than even someone like Isabella. 

Modifié par Medhia Nox, 27 novembre 2012 - 07:04 .

[esper]

Medhia Nox wrote...

@Esper: You stated that you respect "something" about these people who you also share differing viewpoints with.

What are the characters given to respect each other about except "We're all constructs forced together in a game." ?

Yes - they're forced together because they are - but I think it could have felt more organic.

Hawke personally helped Fenris and Anders in a potentially life threatning situation when they met, not to mention more less give them the security of knowing a noble, and later a champion. That is enough for some people.

Hawke is the only human Merill knows. Who else does she have as an dalish in a human city. She knows as little of city elf culture as Hawke does.

Hawke helped Isabella out too and might even have promised to help her further.

Hawke and Varric survied the Deep Roads together, Hawke and Aveline survived the darkspawn.

All those are grounds for respect.

Modifié par esper, 27 novembre 2012 - 07:05 .

[hoorayforicecream]

Medhia Nox wrote...

Yes - they're forced together because they are - but I think it could have felt more organic.

A lot of things could have been done better. Does that mean that the specifics are flawed, or does it mean the system itself should be jettisoned? I would argue more for the former than the latter.

[esper]

Medhia Nox wrote...

@Esper: You stated that you respect "something" about these people who you also share differing viewpoints with.

What are the characters given to respect each other about except "We're all constructs forced together in a game." ?

Yes - they're forced together because they are - but I think it could have felt more organic.

====

@Maria Caliban:  Yes, I'm sure the companies you work for are all egalitarian with no cliques in them what so ever.  You have a much more positive ( I would say naive) view of adulthood - as I have experienced it, it is simply a more nuanced form of high school to be honest (the presidential election is a beautiful example - being based far more on clique and popularity than any form of educated votning base).  I haven't seen this renaissance of the human development that you may have. 

It is true - those with no discernable belief structure can often float.  The less someone believes in "anything" strongly - the more they can fit into a group.  Apathy - I suppose - is a strong chameleon trait. 

I have not experienced this world of indivisive adults you describe - though I will certainly begin to look for it. 

---

My point about Isabella is that she is living her belief system... a lot of people  talk a good game about moral relativism while still retaining a fair lighter shade of grey than even someone like Isabella. 

I so want to say something about American society, but I will hold my tounge and only comment that if life is high school and the the American election is truely how Americans view themselves and the world, you have just confirmed every prejudice of americans I had, which is rather sad. I had hoped they were only prejudices.

[Medhia Nox]

Perhaps for sycophants and mooches. *shrugs*

I'm not disagreeing with you just to be difficult - but if every person I threw a helping hand to started following me, I'd be highly put out.

"You're the only human I know" - is grounds for respect?

Hawke helps Anders because he needs something. Hardly just being a nice guy/gal.

Anyway - while I accept my friends differences - they weren't the initial foundation for those friendships. Concentrating on similarities and differences does is far too basic for a relationship simulation for me. It's only one small piece of a far greater puzzle that is human relationships.

----

As for your opinions of Americans Esper... 

Know that this is just my opinion about my fellow Americans.  It is not conclusive nor is it without it's own biases. 

You shouldn't form ayour thoughts based off of one forum goers opinions.

That being said - I have no faith that wherever you're from is really any better. 

Modifié par Medhia Nox, 27 novembre 2012 - 07:11 .

[Welsh Inferno]

mousestalker wrote...

Rivalry makes a lot sense, especially in the work environment. I've had coworkers who were also rivals. We didn't hate each other and we bonded over our mutual tasks

And thats fine. For you. I'v had a similar experience with co-workers. But most of the companions in the game have absolutely no reason to stick around if you're being an ass. I certainly wouldn't stick around with Hawke if everytime we talked he was talking at me, usually in an aggressive tone and telling me I'm wrong every time. The friendship/rivalry system is heavily flawed imo. I actually prefer the origins system as that ones flaws were less annoying as I can actually control them.

Modifié par Welsh Inferno, 27 novembre 2012 - 07:10 .

[Medhia Nox]

@hoorayforicecream: I'm simply pointing out what I feel is a flaw. If the Rivalry system is to stay - I feel this flaw should be addressed. *shrugs*

I said nothing about throwing it out.

Surely you wouldn't mind improving upon it?

[esper]

Medhia Nox wrote...

Perhaps for sycophants and mooches. *shrugs*

I'm not disagreeing with you just to be difficult - but if every person I threw a helping hand to started following me, I'd be highly put out.

"You're the only human I know" - is grounds for respect?

Hawke helps Anders because he needs something. Hardly just being a nice guy/gal.

Anyway - while I accept my friends differences - they weren't the initial foundation for those friendships. Concentrating on similarities and differences does is far too basic for a relationship simulation for me. It's only one small piece of a far greater puzzle that is human relationships.

Neither is Hawke's intial meeting of her friends. Her intial meeting basically boils down to let's kill stuff together, and since a person who is willing to kill stuff with you in Thedas is a good recomendation in a violent world, it is respect inducing.

[JWvonGoethe]

As I said on the previous page, there is a difference between a group of friends and a troop of brothers-in-arms.

Let's say you have a friend whose political views you disagree with strongly - that is not unusual.

If, on the other hand, your friend asked you to kill someone for the sake of furthering a political cause that you strongly objected to, would you do it? Hopefully not.

That is the difference between a band of killers and a group of friends. Merrill and Anders killed blood mages, even though it went against everything they believed in, just because Hawke ordered them to. That is not typical behaviour amongst friends.

The question is why would someone like Fenris conscript with a violent group led by a pro-mage Hawke in the first place? I don't think the game sufficiently answered that question.

Modifié par JWvonGoethe, 27 novembre 2012 - 07:19 .

[esper]

JWvonGoethe wrote...

As I said on the previous page, there is a difference between a group of friends and a troop of brothers-in-arms.

Let's say you have a friend whose political views you disagree with strongly - that is not unusual. If, however, your friend asked you to kill someone for the sake of furthering a political cause that you strongly objected to, would you do it? Hopefully not.

That is the difference between a band of killers and a group of friends. Merrill and Anders killed blood mages, even though it went against everything they believed in, just because you ordered them to. This is not typical behaviour amongst friends.

The question is why would someone like Fenris conscript with a violent group led by pro-mage Hawke in the first place? I don't think the game sufficiently answered that question.

Because Hawke's presence proctect him. Because Hawke is a capable fighter and because Fenris is under the belief that when Danerius comes Hawke will protect him. Now that may be a false belief, and more less stupid, but that what Fenris believes.

[Medhia Nox]

@Esper: It's not a big deal - I just feel like the rivalry system is weirdly antagonistic.

If some people keep antagonistic individuals in their lives and feel that it enriches them - wh am I to stop that?

But I don't. I don't believe it to be at all healthy.

Again - the Rivalry system isn't just two friends talking about differences. It's Hawke actively working against the morality of another character. I believe the two concepts to be totally different.

[esper]

Medhia Nox wrote...

@Esper: It's not a big deal - I just feel like the rivalry system is weirdly antagonistic.

If some people keep antagonistic individuals in their lives and feel that it enriches them - wh am I to stop that?

But I don't. I don't believe it to be at all healthy.

Again - the Rivalry system isn't just two friends talking about differences. It's Hawke actively working against the morality of another character. I believe the two concepts to be totally different.

And it is great for you if you have a life where you can afford to keep only people who friendly with you.

But not the people Hawke knows don't have that luxery. Even an antagonistic Hawke is a boon, because most of them are outcast off society or criminals  and have nowhere else to turn to for protection.

An lone elf or an apostate cannot afford to be picky about people whose presence protecs them in Thedas. 

[Maria Caliban]

JWvonGoethe wrote...

As I said on the previous page, there is a difference between a group of friends and a troop of brothers-in-arms.

Let's say you have a friend whose political views you disagree with strongly - that is not unusual.

If, on the other hand, your friend asked you to kill someone for the sake of furthering a political cause that you strongly objected to, would you do it? Hopefully not.

That is the difference between a band of killers and a group of friends. Merrill and Anders killed blood mages, even though it went against everything they believed in, just because Hawke ordered them to. That is not typical behaviour amongst friends.

The question is why would someone like Fenris conscript with a violent group led by a pro-mage Hawke in the first place? I don't think the game sufficiently answered that question.

I wouldn't kill someone to further my friend's political agenda because I don't kill people. Political views have nothing to do with it.

Alternatively, if I were a mass murderer like the DA II crew, and I lived in a world where I couldn't take three steps at night without a violent gang attempting to kill me, killing one stranger would probably be like killing another. That they're attack me or are a danger to my friend would likely overrule any objection I have to killing someone who's pro-choice.

[Iakus]

The rivalry system was an intersting concept, and could have opened up a wealth of rp opportunities.  You still don't have to tell your followers what they want to hear, but can instead show them that "the other way" works too.  You can show Fenris that not all mages are evil.  Or Merrill the dangers of blood magic, or make Isabela reexamine her hedonistic lifestyle.  They might not agree with you, but will see that you make valid points and will respect you for it.

Where it fell down was that it became a sort of "all or nothing" deal.  Basically just another approval bar.  Only red instead of blue.  Being pro mage and pro blood magic and willing to work with demons only cancels things out with Anders, and in the end gets you nowhere.

Rivalry can work.  It just doesn't really work in it's current form.

[JWvonGoethe]

Maria Caliban wrote...

I wouldn't kill someone to further my friend's political agenda because I don't kill people. Political views have nothing to do with it.

Alternatively, if I were a mass murderer like the DA II crew, and I lived in a world where I couldn't take three steps at night without a violent gang attempting to kill me, killing one stranger would probably be like killing another. That they're attack me or are a danger to my friend would likely overrule any objection I have to killing someone who's pro-choice.

Self defence is one thing. Being asked to go out and kill a group of blood mages who pose no threat to you or your friends is another. Especially if you are pro-mage.

Why would Anders agree to this? Maybe you can come up with reasons, but I personally wasn't convinced by his motivations in this regard. It wasn't a huge deal, and it's the kind of thing I expect to see in video games. Just a minor criticism that I hope wil be addressed in DA3.

[JWvonGoethe]

esper wrote...

Because Hawke's presence proctect him. Because Hawke is a capable fighter and because Fenris is under the belief that when Danerius comes Hawke will protect him. Now that may be a false belief, and more less stupid, but that what Fenris believes.

Fenris was an excellent character, but when it came to him, Anders, Merril and possibly Aveline, I just didn't buy their motivations for staying with Hawke regardless of Hawke's political views.

Of course, I just didn't include them in my party then this was the case, so it wasn't a huge deal. But I'd still prefer for those motivations to be made a little more clear for companions in DA3.

Anyway, heading off for now.

Modifié par JWvonGoethe, 27 novembre 2012 - 07:40 .

[Fredward]

I really like the rivalry/friendship system. Well, I really like the IDEA of the system. But it needs work. When I think of rivalry I imagine Aveline and Isabela, on the surface they're constantly at odds, yet you realize they have a deep bond, maybe more so than any of the other companions. This is NOT the idea I got when I took a rivalry path with a companion. It was being a douche. It was objecting to their views constantly (which could work still) and personally attacking them. I never got the sense that my Hawke LIKED anyone who she took the rival path with, and vice versa. And the rivalmance I took with Fenris was ihateyou-ihateyou-ihateyou-sexualtension-ihateyou-sexualtension-hateyou-hateyou-HATESEX-ihateyou-ihateyou. It just didn't work for me.

That being said I REALLY prefer it over the approval/disapproval thing. I don't have to worry about stepping on peoples toes anymore with the friendship/rivalry system since both extremes are viable. Mind you I still can't flip flop if I wanna reach either extreme BUT I find that I usually don't have to. I almost always object to Aveline for instance. xp

[hawketheman]

Foopydoopydoo wrote...

I really like the rivalry/friendship system. Well, I really like the IDEA of the system. But it needs work. When I think of rivalry I imagine Aveline and Isabela, on the surface they're constantly at odds, yet you realize they have a deep bond, maybe more so than any of the other companions. This is NOT the idea I got when I took a rivalry path with a companion. It was being a douche. It was objecting to their views constantly (which could work still) and personally attacking them. I never got the sense that my Hawke LIKED anyone who she took the rival path with, and vice versa. And the rivalmance I took with Fenris was ihateyou-ihateyou-ihateyou-sexualtension-ihateyou-sexualtension-hateyou-hateyou-HATESEX-ihateyou-ihateyou. It just didn't work for me.

That being said I REALLY prefer it over the approval/disapproval thing. I don't have to worry about stepping on peoples toes anymore with the friendship/rivalry system since both extremes are viable. Mind you I still can't flip flop if I wanna reach either extreme BUT I find that I usually don't have to. I almost always object to Aveline for instance. xp

This!

In order to bond with people that have different values, you need to find some common ground. 

Say I were a homophobic person. Would I be likely to change my views on homosexuality if I met a gay person that was a complete psychopath? According to Dragon Age logic, I would. 

[cowoline]

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.

This is the only rival path (and Merrill's) that works in my oppinion.

Being on rivalry path doesn't change the persons views, but just makes them more desperate.

•  Fenris looses himself to hatred if you rival him, but if you befriend him he is more likely to "forgive" magic.
•  Anders becomes truly desperate and looses even more control over Justice, as if the spirit is eating him away. If you befriend him he seems less lost and corrupted.

and these two romance (though fun to play) make even less sense to me.

Fenris: Grrr you support everything that destroyed my life and everything that happens in the fade and the gifts you give me poisons my soul.

Hawke: but you are so bitter and now I am going to lecture you on everything that's wrong with your views.

Result: Smooching brawl against a wall and three years of devoted waiting?


Anders: I hate the Chantry's role in locking up mages for crimes that have been done centuries ago and you are a hypocrite, because you are a mage/ harboured apostates for the major part of your life.

Hawke: Every bloody mage should be locked up because you are dangerous and you btw is an uncontrollable abomination.

Result: Oh, well yes abomination. I would love to have you live under my roof and keep the templars, whom I support, at bay. (FYI this Hawke is the largest hypocrite in Thedas, but it was a fun playthrough).


The rivalry system is fun, but the romances make no sense to me, because the subject you disagree on is at the very core of what that person believes. Take mysef for instance. I am a vegetarian and love animals and work for animal rights. I have a hard time picturing myself falling for the man running over cats because it's "fun". I don't care if he has lyrium tattoos or brown puppy eyes, there is no way in hell I am letting that person into my bed.

You can of course roleplay like I did with my anti-bloodmage mage, but it still didn't work in my oppinion. Most of the time the rivals can't even be civil with one another.

With that said I enjoyed the rival/friendship system. It was nice that you didn't lose your companions for disagreeing with them, but it could use some tweeking.

[d4eaming]

The only thing that I was really taken aback by was in a rivalry romance with Fenris, my Hawke was a pro-mage rogue, and he says to Fenris during I think Act 3 "We're not exactly friends." I was a bit "wot" about that statement, since they'd been in the romance together this whole time, and I think this was during the make-up quest for Fenris. My Hawke did consider Fenris a friend, he just could not agree that all mages were evil despite what happened to Fenris, and even in Fenris' specialty it says he's agreed to disagree. That doesn't make them not-friends, it means they can set aside those differences while still working for the greater good- or at least Fenris can learn to respect his stance on mages.

I haven't played a rivalry mage romance with Fenris but it would be interesting to have a conversation where you say "if I turn into an abomination, then please kill me". Maybe that is a conversation burred in there somewhere and I just don't remember it. I have a mage/pro-mage Hawke in a friendship romance with him right now, it definitely would be nice to see a "you're a mage, and you disagree with blood magic, you have been kind to elves and other oppressed peoples, even if I find it hard to trust magic, I trust YOU and will work on these issues" conversation.

I don't mind the friend/rivalry paths, but I'd like to see more than just a few token differences. And an option not to have my PC suddenly say "we're not really friends even though we desperately want to shag each other and have been waiting for THREE YEARS to get back together." My Hawke definitely valued Fenris and wanted to help him, considered him a friend, and protected him from slavers without question.

Anders' whole "I want in your pants even if I hate you" angle was kinda creepy too, even if getting together with him after being dumped by Fenris produced some amusing banter.

I haven't romanced anyone else yet, though, so I can't comment on those.

[SpEcIaLRyAn]

They could just get rid of any type of approval system all together and have a more realistic system. Say you disagree on certain things that could set off a plot flag that the character would react to later. Than again that would cause problems later maybe if you change your opinion. Idk but I liked friendship/rivalry better than approval/disapproval.