213 réponses à ce sujet

[Fast Jimmy]

I don't mind Rivalry points. At all. That's not the point I was making.

The Rivlary path is fine. The fact that it is a path is a problem. If you try and wander off the most logical/predictable set of outcomes on that path and the whole thing breaks down in many ways. If a system doesn't make sense unless you stay on the rails, it's not a great system.


The same thing could be said of the dominant tones. If you play as an Aggresive Hawke, it works fine. If you play a Diplomatic Hawke, it works fine. If you want to play as a Hawke who is aggressive against Qunari or Templar forces, but diplomatic/friendly to Mages, the system breaks down. A system that breaks down is one that doesn't work.

[In Exile]

Fast Jimmy wrote...
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 actually think Diplomatic and Sarcastic work great toghether (and even aggressive and sarcastic). It's diplomatic and aggressive that make Hawke sound like a loon when you're doing it in the same conversation. But, frankly, you should sound like a loon if you're switching between the two.

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 don't think DA:O did that at all. There wasn't any lattitude at all in dealing with any of the characters. Or do you mean in responding to them? Because then it amounts to the same thing: you have to use gifts. Have you ever tried a no gift playthrough? You can't acquire even a little bit of dissaproval - in fact, if you don't have characters with you all game, it's actually impossible to move their metre along without gifts at all!

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. 

Right, I understand now. The problem here isn't F/R - it's that Bioware refused to actually have a mechanic that was tied only to belief. If they had done it that way, Anders (for example) would only get F/R points for how you dealt with the mage issue and otherwise there would be no approval metre.

That's how I thought it would work - you'd get big numerical shifts based on a few decisions, not basically this bipolar approval mechanic.

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

No, it would work fine. The problem is when you don't base the mechanic on a single worldview but you do base the dialogue on it.

[SgtElias]

In Exile wrote...

I actually think Diplomatic and Sarcastic work great toghether (and even aggressive and sarcastic). It's diplomatic and aggressive that make Hawke sound like a loon when you're doing it in the same conversation. But, frankly, you should sound like a loon if you're switching between the two.

I actually made a diplomatic/aggressive Hawke that worked fairly well. I wanted her to be very no-nonsense and humourless, but I didn't want her to cross over into mean or cruel. It worked fairly well, believe it or not. I don't know how it would look to someone watching it from the outside, but it was very easy for me to follow her chain of thought from, "Who are you, and why are you my problem?" to "Ohh, your brother, eh? Sigh. Well, I'll see what I can do. Terribly sorry for your loss."

Granted, by the time I made this character, I'd already completed DA2 5-6 times, so it was easier to gauge how mean she was going to be if I chose an aggressive dialogue choice. And I didn't always get it right. But she wasn't anywhere near as bipolar as I feared, and she ended up being one of my favorite characters I've made.

Anyway, just my experience. :happy:

Modifié par SgtElias, 05 janvier 2013 - 05:05 .

[In Exile]

learie wrote..
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.

What you're saying that in both games you had to invent reasons to get along with the characters?

[PaulSX]

I like this system, at least it works much better than DAO's Approval rating. but I think BioWare had better get rid of gifting system since I found the those plots are rather irritating and makes me feel like a delivery guy.

[nightscrawl]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I know what it's called.  Gameplay/story segregation is never acceptable.  It can't be - the gameplay is an element of the story; segregating them makes no sense.

I remember your thread about this a while back... let's not go there again .

Fast Jimmy wrote...

The same thing could be said of the dominant tones. If you play as an Aggresive Hawke, it works fine. If you play a Diplomatic Hawke, it works fine. If you want to play as a Hawke who is aggressive against Qunari or Templar forces, but diplomatic/friendly to Mages, the system breaks down. A system that breaks down is one that doesn't work.

While I liked the idea of crafting your character's personality using the tones, this is the main problem I found with it. In addition to the fact that in many cases the blue/purple/red tones are presented as agree/neutral/disagree, which is problematic.

Modifié par nightscrawl, 05 janvier 2013 - 04:51 .

[SpEcIaLRyAn]

I could agree with the idea that you should just make choices and not worry about gaining approval/disapproval with anyone. But sometimes having full approval or friendship or whatever system it is gives you access to certain content that wouldn't be available otherwise. In real life you can disagree on different things with for example, your spouse, and still have a great and loving relationship.

But what if for example I were to employ this technique of just making choices and dealing with the consequences with Anders. In one scene maybe I agree with him saying that Mages are treated horribly. So I get +5 friendship. Than in another scene I disagree with the idea that there needs to be a revolution against the templars. So I get +5 rivalry. That would mean I am stuck in a relationship neutralness. That doesn't happen in real life. Honestly there is no real perfect system I think.

Friendship/Rivalry was better than Approval/Disapproval but I think more should be done to make the system more realistic.

[learie]

In Exile wrote...

learie wrote..
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.

What you're saying that in both games you had to invent reasons to get along with the characters?

? 
With approval/disapproval, I was able to keep characters in my party if I wanted them. I could choose to raise their approval or allow it to remain low. I could answer questions however I wanted. If I wanted to keep Sten, I could. If I wanted to lose him, I could. 
With F/R, I don't have that control. Wrong answer? Your F/R score stays in the middle and it all ends up like the end of NWN2.

[daft inquisitor]

Fast Jimmy wrote...
If you want to play as a Hawke who is aggressive against Qunari or Templar forces, but diplomatic/friendly to Mages, the system breaks down. A system that breaks down is one that doesn't work.

QFT

suntzuxi wrote...

I like this system, at least it works much better than DAO's Approval rating. but I think BioWare had better get rid of gifting system since I found the those plots are rather irritating and makes me feel like a delivery guy.

I like the gift system, but only to an extent. If you find one or two AMAZING THINGS that are life-changing for a companion to find, then yes, by all means, give them some amazing gift and have them love you for it. But don't litter the game with little statuettes and trinkets and whatnot that don't have any real meaning, but let you buy affection for literally nothing.

Like Alistair and his mother's amulet. That's an amazing, life-changing gift, because he thought it was lost forever. But then, how many of his items were just trinkets carved with faces of mythical creatures? Why did he give a crap about those? They were never explained in-story, so much that I had no idea whose gift they were until I checked a freaking guide. Nice job breaking it, Bioware...

Modifié par ShadowDragoonFTW, 05 janvier 2013 - 01:27 .

[Swagger7]

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.

Oh really?  Why would people continue to interract with someone who they hate?

[philippe willaume]

As far as how they affect the game, DA:0 and DA:2 relationship system works the same.
The effects as such are slightly different
R/F change How the personal story plays and it is good.
in DA:0 companions could turn on/leave you if you pissed them enough and that was good also.

ideally I would like both to be on DA:3

DA:0 gave the impression of more freedom in how the conversation was going because the sentence you pick up was not meant to be used the way you intended to use it.

the gifts were a way to palliate to faux pas, and you usually could guess what gift was going to go to whom by listening to conversation and reading the codex.
(though i have to say in some case it was a borderline esoteric exercise)
To be fair the gifts could be replaced by conversation where the protagonist can either present thing in a more palatable way or Brick-Top-Erold-put-the-kettle-on the companion.

Now I do agree with fast jimmy, I would like to possibility to tell either a faction or a particular individual to naff off without affecting the overall feel of the char.
dialogue is just like combat it is a tool to move the story in the direction the player wants.
phil

[LinksOcarina]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

I don't mind Rivalry points. At all. That's not the point I was making.

The Rivlary path is fine. The fact that it is a path is a problem. If you try and wander off the most logical/predictable set of outcomes on that path and the whole thing breaks down in many ways. If a system doesn't make sense unless you stay on the rails, it's not a great system.


The same thing could be said of the dominant tones. If you play as an Aggresive Hawke, it works fine. If you play a Diplomatic Hawke, it works fine. If you want to play as a Hawke who is aggressive against Qunari or Templar forces, but diplomatic/friendly to Mages, the system breaks down. A system that breaks down is one that doesn't work.

I am confused, what do you mean exactly by this? That the tones were inconsistant with the character, or that the choices available were tonally opposed, that made them inconsistant? 

[LinksOcarina]

Swagger7 wrote...

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.

Oh really?  Why would people continue to interract with someone who they hate?

Because we have to.

I interact with people I hate at work, but we need to work together because we are there. I fight with my brother all the time but we interact because were family.  Relationships are never that black and white, which is kind of the point to begin with. I may have friends or know people who act strange or have hardcore beliefs. But I won't stop being their friend or brush them aside, especially if they are close. That is just one aspect that defines them.

That develops character. 

[daft inquisitor]

LinksOcarina wrote...

Swagger7 wrote...

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.

Oh really?  Why would people continue to interract with someone who they hate?

Because we have to.

I interact with people I hate at work, but we need to work together because we are there. I fight with my brother all the time but we interact because were family.  Relationships are never that black and white, which is kind of the point to begin with. I may have friends or know people who act strange or have hardcore beliefs. But I won't stop being their friend or brush them aside, especially if they are close. That is just one aspect that defines them.

That develops character. 

That may very well be in a "work place scenario", but what part of Dragon Age 2 is a work place scenario? Once The Warden / Hawke helps out each of their companions, they may feel a bit of obligation, but it's not contractual or anything. There's nothing physically stopping them from leaving his company if he just plain pisses them off.

Yours IS a physical barrier. Quitting a job just to get away from those people that annoy you comes out as a monetary issue, if nothing else. Whereas, with regards to the DA:O and DA2 crew, that limit isn't there to stop them from leaving. Most of your companions are assassins or warriors or other types that can literally go anywhere and find work.

They'll not be at wont for money for leaving your company, because you're not paying them. And there is no other similar structure keeping them at your side. And that's where the break from reality comes in. The only thing, the ONLY thing, keeping the DA2 characters from leaving your presence is the fact that the game doesn't support it.

[King Cousland]

I'm not particularly enamoured with either system, though if forced to choose I suppose I'd go with approval/disapproval. 

I see what BioWare was trying to do with friendship/rivalry, and it was one of the few features in DA II which I thought wasn't ill-conceived. However, I disliked the rivalry system. Companions would never really turn on me, nor even leave my side when I did something that was completely detrimental to their entire system of beliefs. The reason for this always seemed to be, "They still respect you.", but why would they? What possible reason would an acquaintance have to even have a modicum of respect for me when my every action goes against what they believe in?

By the same token, I don't particularly like disapproval, as it is possible to have a relationship with somebody where you'll communicate and maybe even get along but where friction still exists and sparks could be prone to fly. 

[In Exile]

learie wrote...
With approval/disapproval, I was able to keep characters in my party if I wanted them. I could choose to raise their approval or allow it to remain low. I could answer questions however I wanted. If I wanted to keep Sten, I could. If I wanted to lose him, I could. 
With F/R, I don't have that control. Wrong answer? Your F/R score stays in the middle and it all ends up like the end of NWN2.

That's more about the removal of gifts, because your complaint is that you can't cheat the approval system as much, though. People complained exactly about doing that and this is why the # of gifts was cut down.

The F/R system is independent of the # of gifts, or how they work.

[daft inquisitor]

King Cousland wrote...

I'm not particularly enamoured with either system, though if forced to choose I suppose I'd go with approval/disapproval. 

I see what BioWare was trying to do with friendship/rivalry, and it was one of the few features in DA II which I thought wasn't ill-conceived. However, I disliked the rivalry system. Companions would never really turn on me, nor even leave my side when I did something that was completely detrimental to their entire system of beliefs. The reason for this always seemed to be, "They still respect you.", but why would they? What possible reason would an acquaintance have to even have a modicum of respect for me when my every action goes against what they believe in?

By the same token, I don't particularly like disapproval, as it is possible to have a relationship with somebody where you'll communicate and maybe even get along but where friction still exists and sparks could be prone to fly. 

There's an old saying about having your cake and eating it too.

If you're upset that companions will stick by you when you have nothing in common and openly oppose your viewpoint, why would you be upset when you can have people leaving for having nothing in common and openly opposing your viewpoint?? 

If I HAD to pick one system over the other, I'd pick DA:O's relationship bar over the F/R one. But, I still say there's a happy medium.

...Like, say, the Relationship Triangle System!! [/shameless plug]

Modifié par ShadowDragoonFTW, 05 janvier 2013 - 07:22 .

[LinksOcarina]

ShadowDragoonFTW wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

Swagger7 wrote...

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.

Oh really?  Why would people continue to interract with someone who they hate?

Because we have to.

I interact with people I hate at work, but we need to work together because we are there. I fight with my brother all the time but we interact because were family.  Relationships are never that black and white, which is kind of the point to begin with. I may have friends or know people who act strange or have hardcore beliefs. But I won't stop being their friend or brush them aside, especially if they are close. That is just one aspect that defines them.

That develops character. 

That may very well be in a "work place scenario", but what part of Dragon Age 2 is a work place scenario? Once The Warden / Hawke helps out each of their companions, they may feel a bit of obligation, but it's not contractual or anything. There's nothing physically stopping them from leaving his company if he just plain pisses them off.

Yours IS a physical barrier. Quitting a job just to get away from those people that annoy you comes out as a monetary issue, if nothing else. Whereas, with regards to the DA:O and DA2 crew, that limit isn't there to stop them from leaving. Most of your companions are assassins or warriors or other types that can literally go anywhere and find work.

They'll not be at wont for money for leaving your company, because you're not paying them. And there is no other similar structure keeping them at your side. And that's where the break from reality comes in. The only thing, the ONLY thing, keeping the DA2 characters from leaving your presence is the fact that the game doesn't support it.

So, you play table tops? 

If so, why do you never quit a party of gathered adventurers?  And don't say you do, when you leave the game. 

[daft inquisitor]

Actually, several of my tabletop game sessions have come to blows (in-game) over differences of character opinion. I've killed at least one party member because his ideals interfered greatly with those of the group, and I've had characters leave the game session over decisions before. Of course, I always have another character in mind waiting to step in. But, sometimes differences of opinion DO HAPPEN, and need to be dealt with.

When I GM sessions, it happens differently when it does. A lot of my players will do things "without the other party members knowing". Which usually involves a lot of Bluffing and secrecy, but it works, insofar is that, the "other players" have blatantly said that, if they ever found out about these events in-character, it wouldn't end well.

Dragon Age doesn't allow you to do such things. You can't just say, "Well, this whole quest is crap... I'm leaving." And DA2 blatantly prevents you from getting rid of characters whose viewpoints you feel don't match your own, once they're in your party (save for a few exceptions). In the same respect, I feel that the companions aren't allowed to just say, "Man, these guys SUCK. I'm going somewhere else..." when that would be a logical step in a lot of scenarios.

[In Exile]

ShadowDragoonFTW wrote...
Dragon Age doesn't allow you to do such things. You can't just say, "Well, this whole quest is crap... I'm leaving." And DA2 blatantly prevents you from getting rid of characters whose viewpoints you feel don't match your own, once they're in your party (save for a few exceptions). In the same respect, I feel that the companions aren't allowed to just say, "Man, these guys SUCK. I'm going somewhere else..." when that would be a logical step in a lot of scenarios.

Actually, you can tell Anders off in Act 2.

[Fast Jimmy]

I was involved with a poorly conceived party of Lawful Good paladin and monk characters and a chaotic evil elven wizard and half-ogre warrior. We wound up killing each other after maybe our fourth or fifth session.

Not to get way off topic, of course...

[The_11thDoctor]

I feel they need to add more to it. I dont see an issue with it though. I never once felt like it was a chore or needing to wiki it. I felt it was just a nice feature. Use common sense and it works. Though I liked the disapproval system too.

[learie]

In Exile wrote...

That's more about the removal of gifts, because your complaint is that you can't cheat the approval system as much, though. People complained exactly about doing that and this is why the # of gifts was cut down.

The F/R system is independent of the # of gifts, or how they work.

Yes, that's what wrong with it.
My complaint is the only way to get a high F/R score is through quest choices. You have to play the game a particular way if you want to keep your companions. It reduces role playing choices and fun. 

[In Exile]

learie wrote...
Yes, that's what wrong with it.
My complaint is the only way to get a high F/R score is through quest choices. You have to play the game a particular way if you want to keep your companions. It reduces role playing choices and fun.

Well, those of us who complained and wanted to have the gifts removed felt that they reduced consequences. If you want to have certain relationships with characters, then you have to build that in-game, not buy it with a cheap mechanic.

Edit:

Even though Bioware is moving back to approval (I think DG mentioned this in a thread a while back) that doesn't mean you'll get what you want: gifts to break the system.

Modifié par In Exile, 06 janvier 2013 - 03:18 .

[Nerdage]

I'd prefer they replace rivalry with something closer to hardening (so they have to actually 'like' you to be receptive) and add a separate path for actually disliking the player; it'd only really have to be one ultimatum then they leave (or just stop talking to you), but it seems reasonable that, if you're really foul to someone, they should leave rather than compromising their beliefs.

However they do it next time, I just hope they make it easier to be nice to a companion and disagree with their politics without becoming trapped in the neutral zone and missing content next time.