76 réponses à ce sujet

[Xilizhra]

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.

In Fenris' case, I think a large part of it is that he's really not very used to freedom. While he prefers it over Tevinter slavery, he's still more comfortable taking orders than acting independently, which is of course understandable; it's all he's ever really known.

[d4eaming]

Yeah, I'm not too keen on my companions getting up and leaving me in the dust ;p But with DAO approval, I did have to genuinely worry if Sten or Zevran were going to stab me in the back at their special crises moments. Maybe in a PNP game that would be fun, but in a video game, it doesn't appeal to me much.

[samgurl775]

I didn't like the friendship/rivalry in DA2. I just felt like it didn't make sense - like someone that is 100% pro-templar and hates mages shouldn't be able to romance Anders (or it should be A LOT more difficult). I'd love a return to the Origins approval system.

[Sharn01]

Fenris was the only companion in DA2 that I felt was really out of place with the game. He hates mages, he thinks all mages should be murdered or locked up, but if Hawke is a mage that's ok, and he will tolerate Merril and Anders since they are friends with Hawke.

That would be like a member of the KKK telling a black man, I think your ok for a black guy, I am still going to be a member of the KKK, but you and I can hang out, and your two black friends are ok so long as your with them.

[Ianamus]

I really liked the rivalry mechanic, but always thought that like/dislike should be separate from friendship/rivalry. rivalry/friendship should cover differing stances and viewpoints, but like/dislike should cover how they like you as a person.

It made little sense for rivalry to be gained just by being mean to your party members. I can see how differing opinions could lead to respect (if disagreement), but insults shouldn't lead to respect.

I also missed how companions would just flat out leave/attack you if they disliked you enough. You couldn't really have that with rivalry.

Modifié par EJ107, 27 novembre 2012 - 11:44 .

[Ellyria]

Friendship/Rivalry was interesting, but it needs some work if they're going to keep using it. Only Merrill/Sebastian's Rivalry seems really well done.

Like with Anders, if you're pro-mage, but you disagree with him in conversations because you think he's an abomination or whatever, he makes frowny faces at you and is like "OMG YOU LOVE THE TEMPLARS AND KISS MEREDITH'S BOOTY I HATE YOU!" Errrrrr... riiiiiiiiiiiiiight...


I wish they would just go back to how it was done in KOTOR; no bars, just conversations after every planet that differed based on light/dark side and choices you made.

[silentassassin264]

Sharn01 wrote...

Fenris was the only companion in DA2 that I felt was really out of place with the game. He hates mages, he thinks all mages should be murdered or locked up, but if Hawke is a mage that's ok, and he will tolerate Merril and Anders since they are friends with Hawke.

That would be like a member of the KKK telling a black man, I think your ok for a black guy, I am still going to be a member of the KKK, but you and I can hang out, and your two black friends are ok so long as your with them.

Are you from the South?  I am black and was friends/acquaintances with a bunch of incredibly racist people.  The thing is, when you get to know people as individuals you tend to make exceptions.  The would still call other black people the n-word and I that jazz but didn't lump me in with their stereotypical "black people".  I was an individual in which we had other things in actually in common.  So yeah, someone in the KKK could have a black friend and accept their friends because they are with them.  It happens all the time.

[Wulfram]

Rivalry could have worked if they'd done it like they described it on the forums before the game came out. So that it really is about that one specific issue.

Problem was, as it actually turned out it got used as basically approval a lot of the time, with rivalry being dished out when you did anything they liked, and friendship being dished out if you did something they disapproved of, even if it had no discernible connection to their big issue.

[frankf43]

It's not only the characters friendship/rivalry with me that I find hard to understand. having Anders and Fenris working together in the same raiding party seemed very unrealistic to me.

[Sylvanpyxie]

I wish they would just go back to how it was done in KOTOR; no bars, just conversations after every planet that differed based on light/dark side and choices you made.

I love you.

I personally dislike influence bars as a whole. I've always felt, as in other games, the conversations themselves and the actions of the Player should dictate how a character responds to you - Not a bar of influence that easily limits your choice of interaction. That's not to say influence doesn't have it place, but I always feel it would work better as a "guideline" as appose to the primary "driving force" of interaction.

With the Friendship and Rivalry system you could often find yourself "stranded" which not only limits the possible out-comes to Companion stories, but outright limits your total Companion interactions(looking at you, "Question Beliefs"). The only way to bypass neutrality was to meta-game your decisions and interactions, leaving the Player shoe-horned into a belief system, or personality, that they might not have wanted.

That's not even mentioning my own personal problems with the "bending" of characterization that makes me feel less like a Player and more like a God. I won't go into that though... It'll be horrible for all of you.

Influence has always felt like a flawed system to me, impossible to balance, unforgiving to Players and buggy as all hell. I much prefer the old system of linking interaction to the consequences of previous dialogue, but I might actually be crazy so who knows.

/opinions.

Modifié par Sylvanpyxie, 28 novembre 2012 - 12:58 .

[Realmzmaster]

I think the problem is that posters are thinking in absolute terms. Human nature does not work in absolutes. Believe it or not people who you would think would have utter contempt fore each other can actually be friends.
I have lived in different parts of the country. I once met two bigots one black and one white who were the best of friends, The white guy was actually a Klan member and he protected his friend from other Klan members by telling them he was one of the good Negroes. The white guy could walk anywhere in the black area because everyone knew he was a friend of the black bigot. Even their wives were surprised at the friendship. They ate at each others house.
I finally had to ask them how it happened. It turns out they are both Vietnam veterans and served in the same squad. They had to depend on each other even though they initially hated each other. They still had utter contempt for others of the opposite race. They no longer saw themselves as black and white but two veterans hanging out together. They had forged a friendship on the battlefield that now carried through life.
Neither would allow their other friends to say anything bad about the other. They also differed in political areas: the black guy was Democrat and the white guy Republican. Their political discussions were a sight to behold.
Stop thinking in absolutes. 100% rivalry does not mean lack of respect or hate

[Xilizhra]

Realmzmaster wrote...

I think the problem is that posters are thinking in absolute terms. Human nature does not work in absolutes. Believe it or not people who you would think would have utter contempt fore each other can actually be friends.
I have lived in different parts of the country. I once met two bigots one black and one white who were the best of friends, The white guy was actually a Klan member and he protected his friend from other Klan members by telling them he was one of the good Negroes. The white guy could walk anywhere in the black area because everyone knew he was a friend of the black bigot. Even their wives were surprised at the friendship. They ate at each others house.
I finally had to ask them how it happened. It turns out they are both Vietnam veterans and served in the same squad. They had to depend on each other even though they initially hated each other. They still had utter contempt for others of the opposite race. They no longer saw themselves as black and white but two veterans hanging out together. They had forged a friendship on the battlefield that now carried through life.
Neither would allow their other friends to say anything bad about the other. They also differed in political areas: the black guy was Democrat and the white guy Republican. Their political discussions were a sight to behold.
Stop thinking in absolutes. 100% rivalry does not mean lack of respect or hate

That works for them, but neither of them are being driven by a spirit, and I don't think it works for Anders as much.
"I am the cause of mages. There is nothing else inside me."

[LinksOcarina]

JWvonGoethe wrote...

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.)

You are meta-gaming at that point though.

Let's be honest, how many of us didn't do that in our first playthrough, and then decided to get the outcome we desired in our second playthrough?

For role-playing purposes, the Friendship/Rivalry system is brilliant. For a video game, it can become tedious because of its hidden complexities due to the narrative. A middle ground is almost necessary for this too, because it would make sense to have one.

For example, Carver and Bethany, by virtue of being incognito for half of the game, are that middle-ground type of character, because its difficult, if impossible, to map out a full friendship/rival path with them. Fenris, Isabella, Merrill and Sebastian are the same, while Aveline, Anders and Varric are fairly easy to figure out their morals and ideals. The point I think is that, from a narrative/roleplay standpoint, the system augments the experience by giving it that semblence of realism. It's like Xzar and Jaheria bickering during Baldurs Gate, before going to blows if it goes on for too long. 

Only this time, you can control it to a certain degree. 

[The Teyrn of Whatever]

Trista Faux Hawke wrote...

I disagree.

Rivalry makes sense if you want to play more aggressive dialogue options without pissing off your companions, making them leave. Once a companion is 100% rivaled, they won't leave you and you can play more aggressively.

I mean... if the goal is to keep your companions for the final battle, without the rivalry system you'd have no choice but to pick all the "nice" options in order to keep your party together.

Rivalry in DA II is a great idea and I hope they keep it for Inquisition. Rivalry is like those two members of a superhero team who are like night and day; their methods, ideals, and principals might be wildly different and they probably don't get along too well on a personal level, but they're working towards similar goals and they've totally got each other's backs. Superman and Batman come to mind.



Plus rivalry makes romance fun! Why just be all classically romantic when you can have a romance reminiscent of Han Solo and Princess Leia in Empire Strikes Back?



Rivalry only makes no sense if you assume that everyone on the protagonist's side are best friends with the main character. How boring...

P.S. It's not always about picking nice options, it can also be just about figuring out the other characters and choosing the options that appeal to the party members in question and sucking up to them that way. I prefer rivalry if the alternative is that party members will leave or worse if their approval drops too low, like wanting to fight you to the death (although I did like how they did that with Sten in Origins; he'd get pissed off with the PC if he felt they were deviating too much from the main goal).

Modifié par The Teryn of Whatever, 28 novembre 2012 - 04:27 .

[Vit246]

I do not like or want any "approval" / "influence" system at all, anymore. Especially the ones that reward you with stat bonuses for achieving "100 approval". That just makes me want to do things and select specific dialogue just to fish for approval instead of roleplaying.

[LinksOcarina]

Vit246 wrote...

I do not like or want any "approval" / "influence" system at all, anymore. Especially the ones that reward you with stat bonuses for achieving "100 approval". That just makes me want to do things and select specific dialogue just to fish for approval instead of roleplaying.

In Dragon Age II the bonuses were honestly an afterthought to me. Plus didn't the effects take place when you had moderate approval anyway, 50-75%?

[CuriousArtemis]

Only works for Aveline and Sebastian, in my opinion.

Fenris -- I usually romance Fenris, and the rivalmance makes no sense (to me). One response from Hawke is actually "We aren't exactly friends, Fenris." Wow. Romantic. Not.

Anders -- OP explained perfectly. Plus why would Anders even bother associating with you if you are pro-templar.

Merrill -- why would Merrill continue to be your friend if you deny her the "special tool" for the Eluvian. During a rivalry playthrough she doesn't even seem to like Hawke anymore.

Isabela -- I admit I've never rivaled Isabela.

Aveline -- She actually punches you out if you rival her, which makes sense lol

Sebastian -- It's hardly even a rivalry; you just think he should be a prince and he's not so sure. Your friendship remains solid.

Rivalry is fine, but at some point the character should be fed up with you and refuse to follow you anymore. And maxing them out on rivalry shouldn't change this.

Anyway, doesn't matter; they already said they aren't doing friendship/rivalry for next game.

[AppealToReason]

I never thought it or the approval system made a whole whack of sense. There is a friendly rivalry which is among bros and stuff but a lot of the rivalry/disapproval just comes down to being mean/disagreeing with them. If some guy asks me to go to fight a bunch of bandits with him but all we ever seem to do is argue, I'm probably not gonna stick my neck out for him.

[esper]

Xilizhra wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

I think the problem is that posters are thinking in absolute terms. Human nature does not work in absolutes. Believe it or not people who you would think would have utter contempt fore each other can actually be friends.
I have lived in different parts of the country. I once met two bigots one black and one white who were the best of friends, The white guy was actually a Klan member and he protected his friend from other Klan members by telling them he was one of the good Negroes. The white guy could walk anywhere in the black area because everyone knew he was a friend of the black bigot. Even their wives were surprised at the friendship. They ate at each others house.
I finally had to ask them how it happened. It turns out they are both Vietnam veterans and served in the same squad. They had to depend on each other even though they initially hated each other. They still had utter contempt for others of the opposite race. They no longer saw themselves as black and white but two veterans hanging out together. They had forged a friendship on the battlefield that now carried through life.
Neither would allow their other friends to say anything bad about the other. They also differed in political areas: the black guy was Democrat and the white guy Republican. Their political discussions were a sight to behold.
Stop thinking in absolutes. 100% rivalry does not mean lack of respect or hate

That works for them, but neither of them are being driven by a spirit, and I don't think it works for Anders as much.
"I am the cause of mages. There is nothing else inside me."

But despite what Anders claims there IS something else inside him, and it is that side that clings to Hawke and takes Hawke's word to heart to the point that his own self esteem gets completely undermined if you are on 100 % rivalry.

[Chiramu]

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.

Merrills rivalry path wasn't very enjoyable to play through. Especially when you're trying to look after her (babysitter Hawke at your service) for the Keeper and she hates you for protecting her! But she likes you telling her that she's doing a good job when she's making the stupidest decisions. 

Other than that rivalry wasn't too bad. Merrill was the only character I did it on because I hated the way she was written so much that I just didn't care about her. 

As for a character like Fenris though I reloaded every time I got rivalry lol.

Friendship and rivalry is more of a mini game. It doesn't matter in the end.

[TobiTobsen]

The only problem I had with rivalry was the german translation for it.
Using the german word for hostility instead of a proper word for rivalry? Not the best way to let players think that earning those points would make the characters more loyal to Hawke.

Modifié par TobiTobsen, 28 novembre 2012 - 08:49 .

[hawketheman]

Realmzmaster wrote...

I think the problem is that posters are thinking in absolute terms. Human nature does not work in absolutes. Believe it or not people who you would think would have utter contempt fore each other can actually be friends.
I have lived in different parts of the country. I once met two bigots one black and one white who were the best of friends, The white guy was actually a Klan member and he protected his friend from other Klan members by telling them he was one of the good Negroes. The white guy could walk anywhere in the black area because everyone knew he was a friend of the black bigot. Even their wives were surprised at the friendship. They ate at each others house.
I finally had to ask them how it happened. It turns out they are both Vietnam veterans and served in the same squad. They had to depend on each other even though they initially hated each other. They still had utter contempt for others of the opposite race. They no longer saw themselves as black and white but two veterans hanging out together. They had forged a friendship on the battlefield that now carried through life.
Neither would allow their other friends to say anything bad about the other. They also differed in political areas: the black guy was Democrat and the white guy Republican. Their political discussions were a sight to behold.
Stop thinking in absolutes. 100% rivalry does not mean lack of respect or hate

I don't know how to respond to this. You, and a lot of other people, completely missed my point. I do not think of people in terms of absolutes. The problem with the rivalry system is that in order to get 100 % (which you need to get quests, conversations, not have them leave) you are forced to be nasty to them absolutely all the time. If these people you described were nasty to each other all the time, then they wouldn't be friends - by definition. In DaO it was easy, with the help of gifts, to get your companions up to a decent approval raiting. In Da2 you are forced to meta-game.

[The Teyrn of Whatever]

Vit246 wrote...

I do not like or want any "approval" / "influence" system at all, anymore. Especially the ones that reward you with stat bonuses for achieving "100 approval". That just makes me want to do things and select specific dialogue just to fish for approval instead of roleplaying.

I don't necessarily think of it as fishing for approval. I think of it as carefully manipulating or persuading my companions. That still counts as roleplaying.

Modifié par The Teryn of Whatever, 28 novembre 2012 - 05:01 .

[AstraDrakkar]

I didn't think DA2's rivalry system made sense either. It's just not realistic.