41 réponses à ce sujet

[Viktoria Landers]

I always felt that the reputation systems of the 2 previous games were incomplete and very simplified. However it is very easy to just stay in the group of those who complain without providing an alternative way and therefore I've put some thought on what I'd recommend instead. I apologize in advance in case a similar suggestion has been made in the past, which I'm unaware of.


- 1 -
The Dragon Age Origins reputation system was based on the Approval/Disapproval of your companions. The higher the approval, the more options were unlocked, such as personal quests, the companion revealed more secrets of himself/herself and romance was unlocked as well.

Yet it couldn't answer as to why a companion would approve in the same way for being respectful to him and if you chose to side with Harrowmont, for example, if we consider that the first is about a personal situation between you and him while the second is about choosing the next leader in the politics of Orzammar.

- 2 -
The Dragon Age II reputation system was based on the Friendliness/Rivalry of your companions. Here if you reached a certain amount, more options would be unlocked, much like the Origins, with the exception that it can happen not only when the companion would approve your actions.

Yet it couldn't answer as to why siding with Meredith would raise for example the friendliness of a companion. Does this mean the companion likes you more as a friend (or as a lover) if you sided with Meredith?

- 3 -
This is what brought me to the point that the companions' approval/disapproval of your actions should mostly be based on the decisions you take on general quests, while the friendliness/rivalry of your actions should mostly be based on the personal conversations you have with them and how you address a personal situation of him/her.

Which means that we need to combine both of the systems seen in the previous 2 games in order to reach the desired effect. Here is a sample image of what I mean. The credits go to my friend.

A two-dimensional system. The horizontal line is the disapproval/approval and the vertical is the friendliness/rivalry. The red curves in the 4 corners are the places where romances can be initiated or other important things.

Examples (using Isabela):
A)You pick a choice which doesn't support the freedom of mages -> Isabela disapproves -4
B)You make a humerous comment, which amuses Isabela -> Isabela friendliness +5
C)You refuse to give Isabela to the Arishok -> Isabela approves +2 and Isabela friendliness +7

From the example, you've noticed the plurality of different choices which all of them make a very interesting mix while still keeping things simple. Eventually, when a companion reaches a high level of reputation of (Approval, Friendliness) or (Disapproval, Friendliness) or (Approval, Rivalry) or (Disapproval, Rivalry) then romance, personal quests and other things can be initiated. These levels would obviously vary from companion to companion.


I understand that there some issues regarding the size, but size doesn't necessarily need to be increased. Increasing our available options, means that we can give more flavour and variety to the size which you can see in the quote below.

Sable Rhapsody wrote...
For example, rather than writing four separate conversations, the game could parse out particular lines of dialogue for friendship/rivalry vs. approve/disapprove.  So a particular conversation could fire like this:

Lines 1-3: same for all characters
Line 4: varies based on friendship/rivalry
Line 5: varies based on approval
Line 6-8: same for all characters
Line 9: varies based on approval
...and so on.

The direct advantages generated by employing that system would be:

• More realistic
• More depth to the relationships. They will feel a lot more real and organic since they'd be more precise on the kind of the relation between the protagonist and the companion since we'd use 4 variants to determine it instead of 2 or 1.
• It will encourage replays by many players to see how the companions act.
• Based on the type of relationship, companion quests may be slightly different, even if they lead to the same result.
• And most importantly. All these things won't really make a big difference in the Dragon Age universe which means that the developers can add the so much needed variety while also keeping the storyline in control.

That would be all. Thank you all for reading it. Please feel free to make questions, critique or support this suggestion. If there are discussions which alienate the users from addressing the topic, I reserve the right to call a moderator and end them.

Modifié par Viktoria Landers, 05 décembre 2012 - 11:19 .

[Bail_Darilar]

You have my support, this is similar to what I was thinkign would be a decent approval system.

[jack253]

This is actually a good idea as it will make the characters feel more alive. A good friend might not be able to follow your decisions anymore in good conscience while someone else might hate your guts but can't argue with your results. I like it and hope the developers take an interest in your idea.

[Mark of the Dragon]

Sounds like a good idea to me. The only problem is whether the team has enough resources to make each type of relationship different with each person.

For example I see it as there being four possible types of relationships the protagonist can have with EACH companion. If they were to initiate this kind of approach I would like each type to have little differences in the way the protagonists and companion reacts to each other. That would make it more realistic.

The only question is if that is possible?

It is a nice idea however so good job

[lil yonce]

I like it too.

[ProfessionalPirate]

Sounds really cool! I'd love it if they implemented something like this.
After all, there have been things I've done that my friends disapprove of, and they're still my friends, and vice verca. This 2d scale is far more realistic than what the've had previously and could make diologue far more fun and interesting with your companions.
Bioware, you have a new goal for companion relations.

[Daerog]

But when one disapproves, you are likely not to get friendly points for that. Also, if one approves of what you are doing, why would they be a rival?

I always took friendliness as approval and rivalry as disapproval, the only difference is that rivalry won't make someone up and leave unless it was a specific point in character plot and it was seen to go in a positive direction rather than a direction that was discouraged in some way, since both rivalry and friendliness opened up the characters.

I think it is fine with just the rivalry and friendliness meters, to see how one stands in relation to that person.

[FenrirBlackDragon]

I think this would be a great idea. It would make the relationship system in Dragon Age more dynamic, and take into account that your personal relationship and working relationship with a character can be much different.

Under this type of system, I can support mages, but still be at odds with another Pro-mage supporter, or with the Templars, or pertaining to any issue that comes up.

The 2d scale seems more realistic, since relationships are often more complex than simply "I love or hate someone".

[jack253]

DaerogTheDhampir wrote...

But when one disapproves, you are likely not to get friendly points for that. Also, if one approves of what you are doing, why would they be a rival?

I always took friendliness as approval and rivalry as disapproval, the only difference is that rivalry won't make someone up and leave unless it was a specific point in character plot and it was seen to go in a positive direction rather than a direction that was discouraged in some way, since both rivalry and friendliness opened up the characters.

I think it is fine with just the rivalry and friendliness meters, to see how one stands in relation to that person.

It all comes down with keeping business and personal feelings seperate. For instance say that you are an extremely arrogant person who considers everyone to be beneath you and you assist the poor not out of the goodness of your hart but as a way of showing others that you are better then others. Your chantry follower will approve of your actions, but your arrogance will drive her mad, thus giving her rivalry. I'm pretty sure someone can come up with a better example but this is how i see it

[Daerog]

jack253 wrote...

It all comes down with keeping business and personal feelings seperate. For instance say that you are an extremely arrogant person who considers everyone to be beneath you and you assist the poor not out of the goodness of your hart but as a way of showing others that you are better then others. Your chantry follower will approve of your actions, but your arrogance will drive her mad, thus giving her rivalry. I'm pretty sure someone can come up with a better example but this is how i see it

I don't see why the approval needs to be tracked in this situation. If chantry follower approves or still has trust in your leadership to get a job done, they stick around and continue to help, if the chantry follower really disapproves of something, they leave or attack you, with or without previous warnings. I don't think a meter needs to be involved for that.

[cowoline]

So want this. Great suggestion.

[HurricaneGinger]

 I like this idea. While I loved the Friend/Rivalry system in DA2, it was flawed in the sense that there were certain things I believe a companion showed too much tolerance. If Hawke supported mages and slavers, I think Fenris would have left on several different occasions. The same with Anders if you were Templar crazy. It seemed the Friend/Rivalry system was based more on respect, but even that can run out depending on a companion's personal beliefs. 

For example: I may respect Anders for his revolution (Friendship), but I dislike his solution (Disapproval). Meanwhile, Fenris would have gained Disapproval and Rivalry points.

So, a combination of DAO's and DA2's systems would make a little more sense.

Modifié par PhantomGinger, 05 décembre 2012 - 01:44 .

[QueenPurpleScrap]

I think this is an interesting idea and could allow you to have more nuanced relationships with your different companions. I think there are other areas of the game which should take priority, but I like this.

[CELL55]

Hmm...While I certainly think it is a good idea and interesting, I can also see how a developer might find the idea either too difficult to implement or too difficult to explain to the audience. Or both. That being said, I believe they did mention that the situation would change for DAIII, so let's hope that it is a good one.

Also, can you imagine how much dialogue this would take? With four different states that your companions could be in, the costs for voice actors would be immense. That just doesn't seem feasible or likely.

Modifié par CELL55, 05 décembre 2012 - 02:20 .

[TheFinalDoctor]

DaerogTheDhampir wrote...

jack253 wrote...

It all comes down with keeping business and personal feelings seperate. For instance say that you are an extremely arrogant person who considers everyone to be beneath you and you assist the poor not out of the goodness of your hart but as a way of showing others that you are better then others. Your chantry follower will approve of your actions, but your arrogance will drive her mad, thus giving her rivalry. I'm pretty sure someone can come up with a better example but this is how i see it

I don't see why the approval needs to be tracked in this situation. If chantry follower approves or still has trust in your leadership to get a job done, they stick around and continue to help, if the chantry follower really disapproves of something, they leave or attack you, with or without previous warnings. I don't think a meter needs to be involved for that.

I think a big thing that could come from this is if you get into the third quadrat where a character both dissaproves and doesn't like you. they could leave. It gets rid of the idea of having say Fenris like you in a rivalry sense, even if you are a dick to him and support slavery and mages.

[Leomerya12]

I'm on board, but the amount of effort it would take to implement this...

[SafetyShattered]

Wow, this seems really cool. Count me in.

[hoorayforicecream]

They've already dismissed this idea. It's too complicated and would require roughly twice as much dialogue as either DA2 or DAO to properly be represented. That would mean that they'd have roughly half the depth that they had in the past two games. What DA3 will most likely have will be a return to the approval meters, but with some hidden metrics for friendship or rivalry, probably similar to hardening the characters in DAO.

[Realmzmaster]

I like the concept. Unfortunately it would be a nightmare to program. Explaining it in a manual would also be problematic. It also does not change the point that a gamer would still have to play a certain way to keep all the companions much like the Friendship/Rivalry system or the Approval/Disapproval. It adds complexity which makes it  harder to program and implement well.
It also would not explain why a mage PC who is for independence would work with a templar companion who is all for the Chantry and anti-mage in the same party without them coming to blows or being recruited in the first place. So the potential templar companion would have to be ordered to assist the mage PC or have some compelling reason for it to happen.

The only reason Morrigan travels with the warden is because of the Blight threat otherwise she has no reason.

Modifié par Realmzmaster, 05 décembre 2012 - 04:58 .

[Viktoria Landers]

 Regarding the complexity, effort, size, etc:

- Firstly, the companions don't have infinite lines in which they address the protagonist. In DAO and especially in DA2, they were specific.

- Secondly, imagine a line which will be mentioned a little differently judging by the type of relationship between the companion and the protagonist. That's not hard to implement, write it down on paper and have the voice actor say it. However, at the same time it adds the so much needed game depth and variety without making the storyline a nightmare afterwards for the writers, since this diversion doesn't happen on vital game plots.

- Thirdly, do you have a link, hoorayforicecream?

Modifié par Viktoria Landers, 05 décembre 2012 - 11:15 .

[Sable Rhapsody]

CELL55 wrote...

Hmm...While I certainly think it is a good idea and interesting, I can also see how a developer might find the idea either too difficult to implement or too difficult to explain to the audience. Or both. That being said, I believe they did mention that the situation would change for DAIII, so let's hope that it is a good one.

Also, can you imagine how much dialogue this would take? With four different states that your companions could be in, the costs for voice actors would be immense. That just doesn't seem feasible or likely.

It does seem difficult to implement, even if I like it in theory.  It might be easier if implemented as independent binary checks for rivalry/friendship and approve/disapprove.

For example, rather than writing four separate conversations, the game could parse out particular lines of dialogue for friendship/rivalry vs. approve/disapprove.  So a particular conversation could fire like this:

Lines 1-3: same for all characters
Line 4: varies based on friendship/rivalry
Line 5: varies based on approval
Line 6-8: same for all characters
Line 9: varies based on approval
...and so on.

It might be easier in terms of word budget and coding, but choppier in flow.  It's 2 AM here 

Modifié par Sable Rhapsody, 05 décembre 2012 - 10:20 .

[Viktoria Landers]

Sable Rhapsody, thanks for the example, I'll quote it to the main post.

[nightscrawl]

Viktoria Landers wrote...

Examples (using Isabela):
A)You pick a choice which doesn't support the freedom of mages -> Isabela disapproves -4
B)You make a humerous comment, which amuses Isabela -> Isabela friendliness +5
C)You refuse to give Isabela to the Arishok -> Isabela approves +2 and Isabela friendliness +7

While interesting, I think you didn't go far enough in showing what a completed relationship would look like using your graph. Taking these specific examples from Isabela and your graph, I plotted them in and added more data points for a complete relationship.




The green bit near the center are your points. As you can see, Isabela disapproved roughly 5 times, while the rest of the time she had friendly interactions with me.

Is that roughly what you had in mind? In this specific instance, Isabela is more likely to be friendly, while still disapproving of some of my actions.

I think it would be more difficult of those points were reversed like so...


In this case, it's difficult to believe that someone can still be friendly while disapproving of almost everything I do. At what point does a person's personal opinion of me and my actions override their friendliness and they start to hate my guts because they can't stand that kind of person I am, regardless of how I have behaved towards them? Just because someone is nice to you does not mean they're not a disgusting human being.

Modifié par nightscrawl, 05 décembre 2012 - 04:53 .

[LinksOcarina]

Honestly, I think you are making it unnecessarily complex by combing two separate systems into one.

I admit the Approval scale in Origins was bad, because only one option was really positive for player results, and it told us little as to why they would care, but friendship/rivalry was almost perfect in measuring interpersonal relationships between the companions and the larger backdrop of the story; namely, why is it that guys like Anders and Fenris still follow Hawke despite knowing their points of view, and tolerate each other just enough because of that relationship with Hawke?

In all honesty, I think they just need the friend/rival system and do a few tweaks to it. It was simple enough to understand and complex enough to give off different results if you don't metagame.

[nightscrawl]

LinksOcarina wrote...

Honestly, I think you are making it unnecessarily complex by combing two separate systems into one.

I admit the Approval scale in Origins was bad, because only one option was really positive for player results, and it told us little as to why they would care, but friendship/rivalry was almost perfect in measuring interpersonal relationships between the companions and the larger backdrop of the story; namely, why is it that guys like Anders and Fenris still follow Hawke despite knowing their points of view, and tolerate each other just enough because of that relationship with Hawke?

In all honesty, I think they just need the friend/rival system and do a few tweaks to it. It was simple enough to understand and complex enough to give off different results if you don't metagame.

While I prefer the F/R system and its ability to have dynamic relationships, it had its flaws. The main issue I have with it is that the companions react a certain way based on your F/R because the system is not smart enough to distinguish if you disagree with their views (mage vs templar) or they hate you because of your actions (supporting slavers). You could dislike mages and magic as much as Fenris**, but also be supportive of slavers. Honestly, with Fenris, the slavery should be the overriding factor, because at that point any discussion of mages would be reduced to philosophical differences. But that is not so. Fenris will still have friendship with you even if you are supportive of slavery. It's ridiculous.

Also, the system was not "simple enough to understand." If that were the case you wouldn't have had people worried about receiving a few rivalry points because red is bad.


** I specifically used Fenris rather than Anders or both because Anders is unstable, and therefore does not react in a predictable or logical manner.

Modifié par nightscrawl, 05 décembre 2012 - 04:49 .