213 réponses à ce sujet

[Liamv2]

x0hn0th3r4nc0rx wrote...

Dhiro wrote...

I do.

hoorayforicecream wrote...

I would rather they improve the friendship/rivalry system than go back to/improve the old approval/disapproval system.

[nightscrawl]

Wulfram wrote...

... you don't need to max out the bar as a Friend, only as a Rival)

This only depends on which you choose at the end. If you are going to pick the opposite side of the follower's natural inclination, then you do need to max out the bar (F OR R) and have completed all of their quests. For Fenris, a mage choice needs a max bar and quests completed; for Merrill a templar choice needs a max bar and all quests completed. Anders is a special case since he will not side with the templars if he is a friend, even if you max out the bar and have completed the quests, that special option is only available if you rival him.

Varric and Isabela side with you regardless. I don't quite understand the description for Aveline, nor what Fenris has to do with it, but the wiki is the only thing I have to go on with her. With all of the rest I have experience with.

I'm a completionist, so I've never had to deal with companions whose quests weren't completed.

Modifié par nightscrawl, 04 janvier 2013 - 02:11 .

[nightscrawl]

Gileadan wrote...

...(unless ****ing at each other is all they got in their lives).

Rofl...

All things considered, friendship/rivalry looks like a metagaming switch to me that lets you choose your favorite flavor of drama for the companion in question.

Although I like the dynamic relationships, I'm forced to agree with this. I really don't see how anyone can get the most out of the F/R system without serious metagaming. Also, if this system is part of the reasons someone dislikes the game after a first play, they will be less inclined to play again to use their metagaming knowledge and experiment with the relationships.

That, more than anything else, is what makes it feel broken.

[daft inquisitor]

HeriocGreyWarden wrote...

They actually don't do that in DA2.

Which is the problem...

[daft inquisitor]

nightscrawl wrote...

I don't quite understand the description for Aveline, nor what Fenris has to do with it, but the wiki is the only thing I have to go on with her. With all of the rest I have experience with.

Pretty much, if you're a Mage, she will usually go with you even if she finds more common ground with the templars. I'd assume this is because she trusts Hawke a lot more, what with how they met and all.

She will side with the Templars against you, however, if you have not done her "Questioning Belifes" quest (which I think is appropriate), and also if you have Fenris to 100% friendship (which, I agree, I don't know why this is the case).

[Wulfram]

nightscrawl wrote...

Wulfram wrote...

... you don't need to max out the bar as a Friend, only as a Rival)

This only depends on which you choose at the end. If you are going to pick the opposite side of the follower's natural inclination, then you do need to max out the bar (F OR R) and have completed all of their quests. For Fenris, a mage choice needs a max bar and quests completed

No, Fenris does not need a max bar to side with Mages on Friendship.  Well he'll initially side against you, but he'll come back if you pick the right choice.

[daft inquisitor]

Wulfram wrote...

nightscrawl wrote...

Wulfram wrote...

... you don't need to max out the bar as a Friend, only as a Rival)

This only depends on which you choose at the end. If you are going to pick the opposite side of the follower's natural inclination, then you do need to max out the bar (F OR R) and have completed all of their quests. For Fenris, a mage choice needs a max bar and quests completed

No, Fenris does not need a max bar to side with Mages on Friendship.  Well he'll initially side against you, but he'll come back if you pick the right choice.

Not the case. I "picked the right choices" in that dialog tree, and he still sided against me. Having to kill him was very sad for me...

[Wulfram]

ShadowDragoonFTW wrote...

Not the case. I "picked the right choices" in that dialog tree, and he still sided against me. Having to kill him was very sad for me...

Well, I've had him side with the mages with 80 friendship.  So maybe there's something weird going on.

[daft inquisitor]

Wulfram wrote...

ShadowDragoonFTW wrote...

Not the case. I "picked the right choices" in that dialog tree, and he still sided against me. Having to kill him was very sad for me...

Well, I've had him side with the mages with 80 friendship.  So maybe there's something weird going on.

There could be a cutoff. Maybe you have to be over 50% or have done certain personal quests. Not sure. All I know, is on my first playthrough, I tried everything and couldn't get him to stay on my side.

[andar91]

I like the system.

I realize that everybody plays differently, but I don't think the point of the system is for it to be metagamed. It's a story mechanic (which may be the crux of your problem-a mechanic being attached to roleplaying and strorytelling).The bonuses associated with friendship and rivalry are decent, but they aren't earth-shattering. I suppose I can see micromanaging them if you're only playing for the gameplay and don't care about story, but I still don't think that's what was intended. I love that I can have positive and negative relationships with companions, and that the game's mechanics slightly reflect the relationship.

[Rpgfantasyplayer]

I like the friendship/rivalry system better than the approval system in the respect that only the NPC's that I had in my group at the time were affected in my choices. In the approval system, even if I didn't have them in my party and they were at camp and I did something they didn't agree with I would get approval taken away. I knew they wouldn't agree with me so that is why I didn't take them in the first place. As long as it doesn't affect those that I don't have in my party at the time, I don't care the which system comes back.

[Wulfram]

Rpgfantasyplayer wrote...

I like the friendship/rivalry system better than the approval system in the respect that only the NPC's that I had in my group at the time were affected in my choices. In the approval system, even if I didn't have them in my party and they were at camp and I did something they didn't agree with I would get approval taken away. I knew they wouldn't agree with me so that is why I didn't take them in the first place. As long as it doesn't affect those that I don't have in my party at the time, I don't care the which system comes back.

Pretty sure the approval system only affected people in party in Origins.  Though there were a few occasions when particularly related characters might confront the PC in the camp after the event.

Personally, I wish party members were effected even if they weren't in the party, at least for non-minor choices.  They'll hear about it from the other companions, and I don't think Anders will be OK with you going around killing mages just because he wasn't in the party at the time.

[Master Shiori]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

I would rather they improve the friendship/rivalry system than go back to/improve the old approval/disapproval system.

Pretty much this.

Friendship/Rivalry still needs work, but even in it's current state it's much better than Approval/disapproval ever was.

[nightscrawl]

Wulfram wrote...

Personally, I wish party members were effected even if they weren't in the party, at least for non-minor choices.  They'll hear about it from the other companions, and I don't think Anders will be OK with you going around killing mages just because he wasn't in the party at the time.

Yes, even though I benefited from the party switching, I agree with this. It is rather silly that it can work out this way.

andar91 wrote...

I like the system.

I realize that everybody plays differently, but I don't think the point of the system is for it to be metagamed. It's a story mechanic (which may be the crux of your problem-a mechanic being attached to roleplaying and strorytelling).The bonuses associated with friendship and rivalry are decent, but they aren't earth-shattering. I suppose I can see micromanaging them if you're only playing for the gameplay and don't care about story, but I still don't think that's what was intended. I love that I can have positive and negative relationships with companions, and that the game's mechanics slightly reflect the relationship.

I don't think the point is for it to be metgamed either, I just think it tends to play better that way. You do miss out on some aspects of the story if you don't hit certain F/R marks.

[Gazardiel]

Wulfram wrote...

Personally, I wish party members were effected even if they weren't in the party, at least for non-minor choices.  They'll hear about it from the other companions, and I don't think Anders will be OK with you going around killing mages just because he wasn't in the party at the time.

Agreed. Considering that all of them are immediately informed of Hawke's sex life and have something to say about that, you'd think that they'd also be aware of more important choices and have comments on those as well.

[Sainna]

I loved it! It was great seeing some of my companions hiss at my character for her actions.

[Iosev]

Wulfram wrote...

Personally, I wish party members were effected even if they weren't in the party, at least for non-minor choices.  They'll hear about it from the other companions, and I don't think Anders will be OK with you going around killing mages just because he wasn't in the party at the time.

I can agree with this.  I do think that major choices should affect companions, even if they're not in the party at the time.  Anders sort of did this buy commenting on how you handled particular, mage-related issues, but it didn't really affect your overall relationship with him.  In the very least, having companions be affected by your choices regardless of whether or not they're in the party at the time would certainly reduce the "I have to switch this person out, and put this person in" meta-gaming, and encourage replayers to simply bring along the companions that they want.

With that said, I sort of liked that I couldn't maximize all of my companions' relationships during my first playthrough, so I think that a bit of meta-gaming should be required to do so (on a replay of the game, of course).

Modifié par arcelonious, 04 janvier 2013 - 04:32 .

[Potato Cat]

I think the main problem, for me, was how if you are truly consistent in your character, you need to really think about which companions you take with you to to avoid getting those dreaded friendship points, were you taking the rivalry path. Being pro-mage for example, it lends itself to also opposing slavery so having Fenris with you when dealing with slavers gives you friendship points when you really want the rivalry. I remember in one playthrough, this meant me being unable to get him 100% either way. I know I could have been better at farming these points by bringing him along on certain quests but then I wouldn't have gotten as far as I did with others. Overall, I like the system, but it's certainly flawed.

[LinksOcarina]

Filament wrote...

I feel like my main issue with friendship/rivalry is that the concepts are not really polar opposites. They ought to be two diverging aspects from the concept of respect. I do not like being penalized on the rivalry path for simply being polite and not needlessly antagonistic, I want to build respect while disagreeing with them on a fundamental moral/philosophical level. I feel like this would be best served by approval/disapproval with diverging paths for approval.

See how so regarding this? Because for me I found the concepts to never be oppotise of each other, at least in practice. 

They made it black/white in-game to mark the paths I feel, but on a fundamental level there was nuance between certain actions/choices. Like Isabella giving friendship points every time you demand payment for a quest, or Merril giving off rivalry points when you destroy the evil Tomes. Things like that worked for me on that moral/philosophical level you describe, I feel like the primary motivations were made polar to make it obvious. 

[9TalesFox]

samgurl775 wrote...

I liked the approval system far more than the friendship/rivalry system.

[Iosev]

From what I recall, I think that friendships and rivalries revolved around particular issues. Isabela's relationship, for example, revolved around altruism vs. self-motivation. A friendship with her resulted in her seeing you as a sort of kindred scoundrel, someone that she would love to have as a fellow pirate. A rivalry with her resulted in her wanting to change herself to be less self-motivated, and more helpful to others. After honing in on what each friendship/rivalry revolved around, it was much easier for me to understand and utilize the system.

I think that Bioware could go a long way into improving the friendship/rivalry system by allowing players to politely disagree with companions (instead of having to use the aggressive tone for particular occasions).

I also think that I wouldn't want the next system to be overly complicated. Some people have suggested included two or more bars, and I'm not so sure that would result in a better experience.

Modifié par arcelonious, 04 janvier 2013 - 04:45 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

LinksOcarina wrote...

It was a more realistic interpretation of how people behave, and I liked that a LOT over the approval system in the end, which only rewarded friendships.You gained rewards for rivalries too, and actually helped in the role-playing to make the characters belivable. 

So yes, I liked it. 

Another thing to add, real quick.

Is Rivalry  truely negative? 

Rivalry isn't necessarily negative, but that means that there were no megaitive consequences in DA2 with regard to your companions.  It wasn't possible to offend your companions to ill effect.  All friendship/rivalry did was encourage players to game the system.

But the approval system, if you take out the gifts, works really well.  All it needed was some mechanism by which companions would leave upon reaching a certain level of disapproval.

[LinksOcarina]

A lot of people think complicated systems make it more complex.

That is not the case all the time.

[Dabrikishaw]

I liked how Friendship and Rivalry augment the party's talents and efectiveness in combat depending on your position.

Friending Merril meant agreeing with her about Blood Magic, as a result she gains an ability to improve her Blood Magic.

Same with Anders and his merger with Justice. His Friendship ability increases his damage output, which is better when used with his Vengeance talent active as a damage dealer.

This type of gameplay-story intergration is pretty nice and more rewarding in my opinion.