213 réponses à ce sujet

[Iosev]

It's been a while since I last played DA 2, but I'm fairly certain that there is character explanation of the friendship/rivalry bonuses for each companion, whereas I don't think DA:O went that in-depth with the bonus descriptions.

[Sylvius the Mad]

In Exile wrote...

Beyond more interactions (e.g. romances) high (but not full) approval had unique consequences (like Zevran not leaving or not dueling Sten).

I'll admit I didn't know Zevran could leave, but not duelling Sten isn't a thing you get.  There's no intrinsic benefit to not duelling Sten.

I found being friendly with all companions quite easy in-character. It just depends on the character. But then I find that to be the case in every game. A social PC has a very easy time of it, because part of being social is knowing how to appear to every character that you interact with - which side of yourself to illustrate.

It was once suggested on this forum that the character I most often play (I described him in great detail) exhibits anti-social personality disorder.

But regardless, if your character isn't actively trying to curry favour, your character fails to reach either end of that scale.  Morever, the paraphrase system virtually assures that the player won't actually know whether he's disagreeing with someone vehemently or raising a nuanced objection to a minor point.

The game doesn't let you do that. Take KoTOR: I do no that have a choice in a middle road between chaotic evil and lawful good in many quests (rarely I will have the option to just accept payment, but that also forces your hand).

Why you choose is more important than what you choose.

[Zubie]

dreman9999 wrote...

Do you even know whyyouget the Friend ship rivalry points for?
You get Marril's Friendship for allowing her to do demonology. You get Fenris's friendship for blindly hating mages.
Add, you need to take the time to understand that people who don't like one another do work together. You never had to work with a boss you hated, or deal with a teacher you did not like?
Hate does not equal not being able to work with some one.

Hence why I said the system would have worked better in Origins where those people would be more inclined to stick together to stop the impending doom.

The DA2 companions basically just hang out with you for 10 years. Why would Anders continue to stick with you when you have continuously proven you really don't give a crap about the mages and believe they should be persecuted?

Modifié par easygame88, 04 janvier 2013 - 09:08 .

[dreman9999]

easygame88 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Do you even know whyyouget the Friend ship rivalry points for?
You get Marril's Friendship for allowing her to do demonology. You get Fenris's friendship for blindly hating mages.
Add, you need to take the time to understand that people who don't like one another do work together. You never had to work with a boss you hated, or deal with a teacher you did not like?
Hate does not equal not being able to work with some one.

Hence why I said the system would have worked better in Origins where those people would be more inclined to stick together to stop the impending doom.

The DA2 companions basically just hang out with you for 10 years. Why would Anders continue to stick with you when you have continuously proven you really don't give a crap about the mages and believe they should be persecuted?

In DA2 the do give every character a reason to stay. They have a goal and the feel Hawk is a means to an end to that goal.
Anders stays to try and convert you because he see you have that potential to be a beacon of Leadership one way or another.
The F/R system is no wherenear asblack and white as you thinik it is. Each character has there positive and negative aspect of gaining ether favor.

Modifié par dreman9999, 04 janvier 2013 - 09:18 .

[Noviere]

Cell1e wrote...

Me too! Couldnt stand the rivalry thing and it really smacked of science fictiony type mass effecty kind of thingy.

Could you elaborate on this a bit? I just don't see how science fiction could possibly factor into describing the friend/rival relationship system.

[Iakus]

I think it needs work, but has great potential

[Fraq Hound]

I really liked the system.

I'd be very interested to see them put it to use in a game that isn't rushed out the door.

[New Display Name]

Friendship = You agree with your friends
Rivalry = You disagree with your friends/partner

Every companion in DA2 was also indebted to Hawke one way or another, and at least a few of them have scarcely anywhere else to go or find refuge.

[New Display Name]

easygame88 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Do you even know whyyouget the Friend ship rivalry points for?
You get Marril's Friendship for allowing her to do demonology. You get Fenris's friendship for blindly hating mages.
Add, you need to take the time to understand that people who don't like one another do work together. You never had to work with a boss you hated, or deal with a teacher you did not like?
Hate does not equal not being able to work with some one.

Hence why I said the system would have worked better in Origins where those people would be more inclined to stick together to stop the impending doom.

The DA2 companions basically just hang out with you for 10 years. Why would Anders continue to stick with you when you have continuously proven you really don't give a crap about the mages and believe they should be persecuted?

You helped Anders find/bring peace to his old lover/friend, and Anders is basically obsessed with Hawke.
Hawke is also a powerful friend to have, especially if you're a rogue mage abomination.

[In Exile]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
I'll admit I didn't know Zevran could leave, but not duelling Sten isn't a thing you get.  There's no intrinsic benefit to not duelling Sten.

It is an entirely different type of social situation; Sten not challenging you changes the very nature of your relationship with him. That counts as a unique effect of high approval in DA:O.

But regardless, if your character isn't actively trying to curry favour, your character fails to reach either end of that scale.

That tends to happen quite often in real life. It's quite a lot like sales, really.

Morever, the paraphrase system virtually assures that the player won't actually know whether he's disagreeing with someone vehemently or raising a nuanced objection to a minor point.

Which is no different than not knowing the tone in DA:O. But shall we avoid rehasing the conversation of whether tone carries meaning (as fun as that it would be; I have new arguments this time, that basically grammer is tone, but bad at it).

Why you choose is more important than what you choose.

Not when the game comes with an internal morality scale that churns out who you are morally.

[LinksOcarina]

dreman9999 wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

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

That is not the case all the time.

F/r is not complex, it's just more varied.

I know.

I'm snidely remarking at the idea of combining the two systems or making it more complex then it really needs. 

[The_Real_Lee]

I felt like the game needed a more nuanced system. I just played through DA2 doing everything I could to help the Mages while rivaling Anders, and he acted like I wanted to enslave all mages. My Hawke tries to push Sebastian to retake his throne, but to get him to go that way you need to rival him and be mean, at times going against his faith.

I liked the DA2 system more than the DAO system, because it made the companions more reactive, you could have differing beliefs but still be friends. DAO, if they disagreed with you they got weaker, and would be unable to put aside their differences in the face of a Blight.

[Fisto The Sexbot]

dreman9999 wrote...

Swagger7 wrote...

I prefer the approval bar from Origins. Companions should leave if you ****** them off. It just makes sense.

No it doesn't.

Yeah, they're like... family. You tell them you want to be left alone but they still don't get it. This is just a further demonstration of the emotional bond BioWare is trying to lovingly craft between the player character and his companions.

It's just not something you see from lesser game developers like Obsidian.

[Fast Jimmy]

As others have said in this thread, the Friendship/Rivalry system is a cool enough concept, but it defies logic.

If you embody everything someone loathes about the world, they will follow you until the death and jump your bones if you click the heart icon. Since over half the companions in DA2 had causes they were willing to put themselves on crosses for, their causes were what made the entire nature of your relationship with them. So regardless of if your Hawke violated every principle of that cause, but either metagamed and didn't bring those companions along or spoke all the right words, they acted like you were the White Knight of their belief structure. It, in many ways, really did not make any sense, no matter how you sliced it.

I like the idea of having the ability to choose more than one venue with your companions (in DA:O, they either hated you and possibly attacked you or left, or they loved you). If there was a system that balanced the two, which gave and respected different venues you could take in the relationship and yet also recognize that being an absolute **** to a person wouldn't make them better comrades would be nice.

After all, many of us have had friends who offer completely different viewpoints than us, but we still treat them as friends because of the history we have shared and our enjoyment of each other's company. And we've all had friends who we have tons in common with, but who is a total insufferable jerk that made you want to never be with them again. By that same token, having someone have a high approval, but absolutely polar opposite ideals would be a good way of having a logical setup for what I think the DA2 rivalry relationship would be like. Similarly, having someone with near-exact ideals, but an abysmal approval rating would be another way of a relationship going that wasn't explored in DA2, but would make a lot of sense. And then, of course, someone we don't agree with anything on and who we hate... that's something DA:O tackled in only an ancillary way by having your companions leave/attack/betray you.


All that being said, having companions defined by their ideals is also a very slippery, tricky slope. Its a really rough road to write someone to have a certain worldview based on their past and not beat you over the head with it. DA2 had one too many nogin-smacks for me to feel like some of my companions were hardly more than caricatures.

[In Exile]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

If you embody everything someone loathes about the world, they will follow you until the death and jump your bones if you click the heart icon. 

But you don't have to play it that way. This is where you get resistance to the idea.

Since over half the companions in DA2 had causes they were willing to put themselves on crosses for, their causes were what made the entire nature of your relationship with them. 

What's hard to believe isn't the endgame, when they've had their entire worldview molded by you - what's hard to believe in some cases is that they'd stick around for the middle portion. Specifically, I'm talking about Anders. Thgh I'd imagine the justification is that part of Anders agrees with Hawke, that Justice is controlling him. But that's a flimsy justification.

If there was a system that balanced the two, which gave and respected different venues you could take in the relationship and yet also recognize that being an absolute **** to a person wouldn't make them better comrades would be nice. 

I guess where we have the difference is whether DA2 reached that point.

[Face of Evil]

"Embody everything someone loathes about the world" seems a bit over the top. Meredith embodies everything that Anders loathes about the world. Danarius embodies everything that Fenris loathes about the world. Hawke can be a bit of a dick to his comrades, but he's often trying to be a helpful dick.

People always bring up how Fenris sticks with a pro-slavery Hawke in their criticism of the Friendship/Rivalry system, but the only time in the entire game when Hawke can actually own a slave in the midst of Fenris' companion quest. In other words, you were helping him at that venture. Does it really make sense for Fenris to cut off ties with Hawke in the midst of a quest for revenge so he can take on the rest of these slavers on his own?

And as In Exile is indicating, you have to take into account player agency. I think handing Fenris over to Danarius is a pretty horrible thing to do, but I don't begrudge the game having that option.

Modifié par Face of Evil, 05 janvier 2013 - 02:50 .

[Fast Jimmy]

In Exile wrote...

But you don't have to play it that way. This is where you get resistance to the idea.

No, if you play along with either the Friendship or Rivalry path perfectly, it is a nice little package with a bow on top for you. Just like playing all Aggressive, or all Sarcastic, or all Diplomatic also gives you a seamless experience. Its only when you try and color outside the lines that the whole thing collapses. 

I don't feel that DA:O did that. For one, it gave you a fair bit of lattitude in dealing with people in a way that was as consistent or as inconsistent as you wanted. The gift-giving made things easily patched up, which was a bit of a backdoor... but I'd rather the game make my companions look shallow than make them look stupid or hypocritical.

I guess where we have the difference is whether DA2 reached that point.

Examples people have given in this thread show that this point could be reached. You can support mages at every turn, but be mean to Anders and activate his Rivalry path, where he treats you like an anti-Mage zealot. You can talk to Fenris about how slavery is terrible, but have a slave in your home when you sleep with him. You can tell Merril that blood magic is dangerous, unsafe and a gateway to terrible things and be a blood mage yourself. 

Basing many of the companions interactions on one worldview or obession opens them up to some serious gameplay/story segregation problems. 

[Fast Jimmy]

Face of Evil wrote...

And as In Exile is indicating, you have to take into account player agency. I think handing Fenris over to Danarius is a pretty horrible thing to do, but I don't begrudge the game having that option.

...what?

I was following your post right up until this point. I don't understand this. Where did this come from? The rivalry/friendship system has very little (or close to nothing) to do with player agency. Doing good or bad things has nothing to do with how the game tracks how your companions feel about your actions or choices. If DA2 had the old Approves/Disapproves system, you would still be able to give Fenris over to Danarius for coin. It has nothing to do with whether, leading up to that point, you were taking actions that were in opposition to his core beliefs or in line with them.

[Face of Evil]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

I was following your post right up until this point. I don't understand this. Where did this come from? The rivalry/friendship system has very little (or close to nothing) to do with player agency. Doing good or bad things has nothing to do with how the game tracks how your companions feel about your actions or choices. If DA2 had the old Approves/Disapproves system, you would still be able to give Fenris over to Danarius for coin. It has nothing to do with whether, leading up to that point, you were taking actions that were in opposition to his core beliefs or in line with them.

What I mean is, if a optional thing offends you, don't do that thing. If a rivaled Fenris who follows a pro-slavery Hawke offends your sensibilities, then ignore it. It's like gay options in DA2: they  don't interest me personally, but I don't begrudge their existence.

Modifié par Face of Evil, 05 janvier 2013 - 03:11 .

[learie]

The friendship/rivalry system stopped me from playing the game the way I wanted.
The approval system didn't.

In DA: Kirkwall if I needed a thief/warrior/mage for the whole game, I had to meta-game friendship and it became very frustrating. My choices were very limited. In DA:O, I could cheat with a gift. I had a lot more choices.

[Fast Jimmy]

 What I mean is, if a optional thing offends you, don't do that thing. If a rivaled Fenris who follows a pro-slavery Hawke offends your sensibilities, then ignore it. It's like gay options in DA2: they  don't interest me personally, but I don't begrudge their existence.

So... what you're saying is I should look up a walkthrough before playing the game, read about all the possible interactions and meta game around them so I don't play a certain way that maybe isn't advertised by the game as completely standard?

I'm not sure I like that.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 05 janvier 2013 - 03:20 .

[Face of Evil]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

So... what you're saying is I should look up a walkthrough before playing the game, read about all the possible interactions and meta game around them so I don't play a certain way that maybe isn't advertised by the game as completely standard?

You need to watch a playthrough of the game to avoid taking a pro-slavery stance? Now you've lost me.

You've met Fenris. You've learned his backstory. Is it so hard to figure out that he might not be kosher with the idea of taking slaves, and might in turn give you Rivalry points?

Modifié par Face of Evil, 05 janvier 2013 - 03:33 .

[Navasha]

My only real problem with the rivalry system in DA2 was that it made no sense to me. Who hangs around with people who you consider rivals? Who goes willingly into battle with someone whose judgement you don't trust?

I would prefer it that there were more consequences for friendship/rivalry points, including that if enough rivalry points are gained than the companion goes their own separate way.

[SgtElias]

I, personally, preferred the friendship/rivalry system. I have no problem with the approval/disapproval system, but I did enjoy the f/r system more. I found some characters to be vastly different from one to the next, and I loved how that changed the relationships between those companions and my PC(s). Merrill, especially, was a lot of fun to switch between.

It definitely wasn't perfect, but I'd really like it to return for future installments.