41 réponses à ce sujet

[vortex216]

I like it, granted it will take a lot of time and effort and might not be worth it in the long run. If they could find a way to make it more managable, it would be a fanastic idea.

[LinksOcarina]

nightscrawl wrote...

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.

That is an issue of sliding scales though. You gain rivalry points if you support slavery, is it a question of tweaking the numbers a bit to say make it a +20 on the scale instead of a +10? that would supercede issues then, no?

And after all, friends have major flaws too. In a real world context no one has a perfect relationship where they all agree or disagree on things, perhaps Fenris can overlook that aspect of Hawke in the end because of his disdainf or magic. Is it logical, not entirely. 

But relationships rarely are anyway. 

And honestly i had no issue with the system when I first played it. Maybe its because I never saw red as being bad...

Modifié par LinksOcarina, 05 décembre 2012 - 06:22 .

[nightscrawl]

LinksOcarina wrote...

And honestly i had no issue with the system when I first played it. Maybe its because I never saw red as being bad...

You didn't, I didn't, but many people did. How the devs react to that with changes to the system we'll just have to wait and see.

From various comments made I think they are going to go back to a more approval/disapproval system, but I don't think it will be as simple as it was in DAO -- I can't link to a source unfortunately, I usually prefer to do that. Frankly, I don't care what they call it. The important thing for me in DA2 was the dynamic nature of the relationships which added tremendous replay value for me. I will be sad if they do away with that completely.

[Viktoria Landers]

It seems my suggestion didn't receive as much attention as I expected to.

@nightcrawl: I intentionally didn't get into more details for 2 reasons.

The first is that it would make the post too long and people won't read it and the second is that the details are a matter of personal opinions. Some would find those as too complex while others would find them too simple.

The main idea of this suggestion is the combining of the two previous systems into a two-dimensional system, generating many advantages at the same time.

[naughty99]

I'd love to see a system which tracks the player's reputation with various NPC factions in the game, along the lines of the Fallout New Vegas reputation system.

Modifié par naughty99, 06 décembre 2012 - 12:09 .

[chrstnmonks]

I would like to see something like this not only with your companions but the wprld around you

[gosimmons]

Very interesting concept, though I'm not sure how they'd handle the multiple variants of interaction to deal with.
Such as having a character fond of you, while also completely disapproving your actions, or having one hate you while appreciating everything you've done; cool idea, but difficult to imagine implementing it. 

Modifié par gosimmons, 06 décembre 2012 - 06:29 .

[Margerard]

I suppose it's rather obvious that I agree with this concept. The only thing I thought (and I noticed I wasn't alone with it) that when it would come to disapproval/rivalry, the party could leave.

After all, for instance, if you are in romance with Fenris but you're a mage and slavery supporter, a total douche to him and you even ponder the offer of Danarius to give him up (and the only reason you don't give him up is to keep him around like your own slave) then that doesn't make much sense of him not leaving you eventually. Of course, he could leave on an occasion if you don't help him to chase Hadriana, but that's still one thing. All in all, the approval/disapproval bar could give the chance to get rid of the companion.

On the other hand, the friendship/rivalry bar could still affect the companions attitude, like in DAII - as I see this bar, it works like the hardening option in DA:O, except that in the second game they are behave somewhat hostile, but still their attitude and opinions change. It's like when you hardened Alistair to think for himself for a change.

It's not a must to create these two bars into one, but I still wouldn't neglect the idea to use both of them, as they would make a much more realistic relationship between the protagonist and the companions. Also, I can see all options work.

Approval and friendship would be an obviously positive relationship, where romance is also credible.

Approval and rivalry would harden the companion to stand for oneself, as you always stress the companion in private, but one could still approve the actions you take, it's just that your opinions are different, but still, there can be a positive outcome. A fiery romance is also credible here, as conflicting opinions don't necessarily close out feelings, and I'm sure many people experienced it.

Disapproval and friendship would mean that the companion is indifferent about the protagonist, and less trustful. The actions your character would do make one dubious, but as one isn't bothered, stressed, pressed towards somewhere and the protagonist is good to the companion, one wouldn't mind the character's presence. This would mean a neutral ground, where loyalty quest can't be acquired, thus making one disloyal in harder decisions, but generally not giving a personal reason to leave. (Of course, later in the game there could be a critical point where the disapproval would make one leave, but that would be one occasion.) Something casual (like it was in Jack's case) could be pursued here, too. To be honest, this part is the hardest to determine, but maybe this way it could work.

And the last one, the disapproval and rivalry, where the hatered is clear and your companion will leave as soon as the "red corner" is reached. One could never approve your actions, but neither you as a person.

So, as I see this, is that there are different levels square by square. Positive, neutral positive, neutral negative, negative. I hope I could give something to this discussion.

[snackrat]

I was thinking more the inverted triangle. The bottom point - no respect. Top left - friendship. Top right - rivalry.

With Anders, if you denied demons and were merciful to mages, yet supported templars, you would get a swing of friendship/rivalry which resulted in Anders relationship being the equivalent to JUST HAVING MET him, thereby limiting it severely. With a triangle system, he'd gain respect each time for your convictions, and the end result is that he would respect you even if you didn't mesh completely

This two-bar system requires there to be a way for someone to hate you in a friendly way, a REALLY friendly way, a rival way, etc. The triangle system would show that the less respect they have, the smaller the distinction. By the time they reach 0 (or -100, whatever) and are completely in the bottom point - their crisis point (where they presumably leave/fight you) - there will be no difference whatsoever.

Modifié par Karsciyin, 08 décembre 2012 - 01:45 .

[Hatchetman77]

I support this system.

[Weltea]

As long approval/disapproval influence friendship/rivalry then yes. Because it'd be pretty weird to have a character disapprove of absolutely everything I do but want to be BFFs (especially if the choices you make are connected to the characters in some way -like telling Merrill to not try and fix the mirror or having Anders with you when slaughtering mages).
Then however the way those things influence each other would need to be different (because it's a lot more likely to have a rivalry with someone even if you like every one of their choices than it is to feel frienship towards someone whose choices you disapprove of.)
And different characters would need to react differently (take Anders,he's so involved in the mage/templar thing that his opinion on a choice you made concerning that conflict would definitely carry over to any personal conversations you have and he would respond more positively/negatively depending on what you did. Isabela or Varric on the other hand would be more likely to shrug it of if you made a bad decision they disapprove of and would be less influenced by it).
Basically what I'm saying is:it's a nice idea but to complicated to actually be implemented (well).

[Truth]

 Well OP you got my support, good idea.

[In Exile]

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

It's not about the # of lines. It's about the pure mathematical space that you have to now segment when you have a 2D instead of a 1D measure. All friendly (but no ) should be analytically distinct from all friendly (and max ) for the categories to have any meaning at all.

- 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.

It's expensive. It means more investment/character. Which means either half the characters, or a third less game.

[Viktoria Landers]

In Exile wrote...
It's not about the # of lines. It's about the pure mathematical space that you have to now segment when you have a 2D instead of a 1D measure. All friendly (but no ) should be analytically distinct from all friendly (and max ) for the categories to have any meaning at all. 

I don't recall many special lines if your companion was also romanced. Nor it is required with this suggestion.

In Exile wrote...
It's expensive. It means more investment/character. Which means either half the characters, or a third less game.

Adding diversion to a game makes it more expensive, making a RPG, where you have different choices and walkthroughs is expensive.

You can't avoid that, unless you propose and prefer a linear storyline for Dragon Age. Personally, I don't like that.

[hoorayforicecream]

Viktoria Landers wrote...

 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.

How many lines are we talking about? Too few and it doesn't make enough difference to matter. Too many and you've significantly increased the amount of work the writers need to write. They have word budgets. If even one third of the lines written need to take this into account, you now need to cut roughly 1/3 of the total words written for the game in order to accomodate for the added work of writing the difference between friend + approve, and rival + approve.

- Thirdly, do you have a link, hoorayforicecream?

David Gaider wrote...

And very likely the friendship/rivalry will go back to being "I like you"/"I don't like you" as in Origins. The DA2 version was more nuanced, but also more difficult for players to understand-- most of whom thought rivalry was a penalty of some kind anyhow (or this is my impression). While I would not want to go back to the Origins method of rivalry equalling no interaction, I think having it be about the general attitude and not about how much you agree with their personal issue is a bit easier for folks to wrap their heads around.

This was already discussed in this thread from around 9 months ago, which brought up the same sort of two-dimensional system you've thought up, along with what the writers thought about it. It isn't set in stone (as he says) but you haven't really brought anything new to the discussion that would make them change their stance. I'd suggest reading the thread, as it brings up many of the same issues.

[In Exile]

Viktoria Landers wrote...
I don't recall many special lines if your companion was also romanced. Nor it is required with this suggestion.

I'm not talking about romance. I'm talking about creating a friedship-dislike, rivalry-like scale. You essentially have two create at least four distinct end-game relationships, and probably 1-2 intermediary states for each (otherwise it doesn't feel organic). So now, instead of a single axis that maybe goes: Best Friends - Friends - Neutral - Dislike - Enemies, you have to have maybe twice those outcomes per character.

Adding diversion to a game makes it more expensive, making a RPG, where you have different choices and walkthroughs is expensive.

You can't avoid that, unless you propose and prefer a linear storyline for Dragon Age. Personally, I don't like that.

My point was just that all of this has a $$ figure, and Bioware has to pay it. Which means either more DLC, higher priced DLC, features to appeal to more gamers for greater sales, or less content, so that the margins actually keep Bioware afloat and keep EA shares from tanking further.

[Maria Caliban]

I think the problem is that some people see the relationship bars as simulationist and others view it as gamist.

I don't believe that the relationship meters are intended to accurately reflect the complexity of human relationships. I think they're intended to give the player a constantly stream of feedback for their decisions (+5 Aveline, -5 Merrill, -10 Isabela -- Can you guess what sort of decision I've just made?) and a numerical indication of how far along the player is in a specific relationship.

If you're only interested in companions as characters, then ignore the relationship meter and the various pop-ups. It's more about playing the companion mini-game and using companions as narrative/thematic tools.

Modifié par Maria Caliban, 10 décembre 2012 - 09:56 .