213 réponses à ce sujet

[ScarMK]

In Exile wrote...

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.

Gifts allowed people like me to have our headcanons be reflected ingame to an extent.  If I want to headcanon I'm in the Gnawed Noble Tavern with Alistair, Leliana and Oghren.  Then my character drunkely hits on Leliana and makes fun of alistair about his virginity, gifts allow me to do that.  As long as gifts are optional, I will forever support gift spam.

[Tootles FTW]

- Songlian - wrote...

I don't want to hoard their Friendship and Rivalry points like it's the second most important thing after the Blight. Switching teams so as their causes do not conflict with my intended course of action, and carefully checking the wiki before every mission to see who's planning to hit me with disapproval if I say the wrong thing.

Preach!  After my first playthrough, subsequent playthroughs were a meta nightmare trying to juggle my companions to correctly sort what points to collect for my intended F/R paths.  I completely fcuked up with Isabela my first game, so ever after I'm ****-footing around her in Act 1-2 to ensure she doesn't ditch (and I find Isabela to be the hardest to predict when guessing what will earn F or R points), and I completely bombed my romance with Fenris because I was nice to mages (+R) but mean to slavers (+F) so I was, unbeknowenst to me, friendzoned with too few points of either.

That being said, I much prefer the F/R system to DA:O's disapproval/approval system, as it doesn't lock you out of their quests or dialogues and it offers you two very different relationships dependent upon how you play (which encourages replays).  My whole problem could have been solved if they had just released a "gift DLC" like they did with Origins.  Sure it's kinda cheap, but it would allow me to organically play with whom I want in my party without shuffling like a madwoman, and I can make up the points with a gift or two - no harm, no foul.

[In Exile]

ScarMK wrote...

Gifts allowed people like me to have our headcanons be reflected ingame to an extent.  If I want to headcanon I'm in the Gnawed Noble Tavern with Alistair, Leliana and Oghren.  Then my character drunkely hits on Leliana and makes fun of alistair about his virginity, gifts allow me to do that.  As long as gifts are optional, I will forever support gift spam.

Gifts don't let you lose approval for that though.

[ScarMK]

In Exile wrote...

ScarMK wrote...

Gifts allowed people like me to have our headcanons be reflected ingame to an extent.  If I want to headcanon I'm in the Gnawed Noble Tavern with Alistair, Leliana and Oghren.  Then my character drunkely hits on Leliana and makes fun of alistair about his virginity, gifts allow me to do that.  As long as gifts are optional, I will forever support gift spam.

Gifts don't let you lose approval for that though.

The feast day pranks did, which really shoudn't have been DLC.

[In Exile]

ScarMK wrote...

The feast day pranks did, which really shoudn't have been DLC.

Did they? I didn't get gift DLC. I was thinking about the game itself.

[Tootles FTW]

In Exile wrote...

ScarMK wrote...

The feast day pranks did, which really shoudn't have been DLC.

Did they? I didn't get gift DLC. I was thinking about the game itself.

Yea, it was pretty amazing.  You could "prank" Zevran with a chastity belt which would net you -50 disapproval and would become permanently equipped on him unless you use a key to unlock it.`

[Big I]

I liked rivalry as a means of convincing NPCs to change. For example, I liked how Sebastian, Isabella, and Merril could be guided onto different life paths by pursuing a rivalry to completion, much as Alistair and Leliana could be "hardened" in their personal quests in DA:O.


I disliked how rivalry played out with Fenris, Anders, and Aveline (I haven't seen Varric's but I've heard it's not great). Rivarlry with Fenris etc is less "I disagree with your stance on important issues even if I like you as a friend", and more "I hate you and wish you would die". Fenris comes across as a crazed loner who you for some reason talk to, and Aveline attacks you after which she's fine with you (wtf).


Also, rivalry dialogue responses are too narrow to encapsulate thePC/NPC relationship. Anders kept going on about how my MageHawke was a traitor to his own kind, even though I did everything possible to help mages. Needless to say, it was odd and off putting.


Any system of NPC influence should be consistent. Rivalry that works differently for half the characters is as wierd as Sten deciding to kill you because he likes you DA:O.

[Nightdragon8]

IMO The friendship/rivalry system should have been in DA:O cause in that case even if you didn't like the guy you still had to deal with them because of the blight is a bigger issue.

While with the approval system makes more sense in DA2 considering there wasn't as big of a threat in the game. and so if you ****** someone off they would just not be around you.

[New Display Name]

Nightdragon8 wrote...
in DA:O cause in that case even if you didn't like the guy you still had to deal with them because of the blight is a bigger issue.

I disagree somewhat. Only Alistair and Loghain were Grey Wardens - meaning that the other party members weren't nearly as needed and vital. They were useful, but it's not as if the group would automatically fail and fall apart if Oghren or Zevran etc left.

[Targonis1]

The real problem is the numbers associated with dialog and choices make for a min-max approach which is what has killed much of the roleplaying aspect in games.   Say this or do that just to get the minimum number to be given this quest or that quest.   NPCs in most of the games these days are just there as "helpers", rather than plot devices that add DEPTH to the game, as if your team members do NOTHING when they are on their own.

Moving to a system where team members look at your actions, even when they are not with the main character, and where they WILL chime in with their opinions, or do other things while the main character is out and about works better.   Or, make it where there ARE no team members, but NPCs show up based on the flow of the game, take off when their own lives take them elsewhere, and step in if the main character seems to need their help and they like what the character is doing.

Hmmmm, main character has been acting anti-mage means that as the story goes on, any potential allies that are mages MAY just show up supporting or even leading attacks against the main character, or may help a pro-mage main character at a critical time, not because he/she has been asked to show up, but because that NPC is a mage and working on his/her own agenda.

No numbers, no "party members", no squad...people can lead lives outside of working with a main character.   A non-science fiction world means the main party is not trapped together on one ship over the course of the story.   Look at The Witcher 1 and 2 to see how NPCs can be around through most of the story without having to be pawns for the main character.

[nightscrawl]

In Exile wrote...

ScarMK wrote...

The feast day pranks did, which really shoudn't have been DLC.

Did they? I didn't get gift DLC. I was thinking about the game itself.

I never bought those DLC either. However, they aren't as trivial as they sound. In some cases, through normal means, it's possible to increase your companion's approval so rapidly that you miss certain prompts, which would basically bug them out relationship-wise. The pranks can be useful to take them back down and proceed at a normal pace so you get all of the events to fire.

[Reofeir]

I like the friendship/rivalry system. Though I do want to see them continue to improve upon it. I kind of dislike the old system.

[esper]

SgtElias wrote...

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:

I have this characther too, introvert, passive agressive Hawke. She even mixed in a bit of sarcastic when she was relaxed (which was rarely)

From her own point of view her reactions made perfect internal sense. Her attitude basicall boiled down to 'I will be happy to help, but offend me one more time and you will see why I am a blood mage". Granted by act 3 she was very easily offended.

As for friendship and rivalry, approval/disapproval. I don't care what bioware names it, I just want there to be an equal amount of content on the negative side of the scale as the positive so I am not forced into to suck up to every body on the team. As long as both side of the scale is gameplay wise/ contentwise equally rewarding bioware can call the scale 'pigoens and cats poop' for all I care.

[Cobra's_back]

samgurl775 wrote...

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

This.

[Cobra's_back]

IN Exile wrote:
"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.
"


I totally agree with this. When I played the game I really didn’t care for the companions as much as DAO because they did seem realistic. This hits it on the nail for me (basically this bipolar approval mechanic).

[Sylvanpyxie]

Friendship/Rivalry system - who really likes it?

I could like it, I think it has more potential than the "Ply them with Gifts" affection system, but it has a lot of flaws at the moment.

The lack of recognition for character choices is the biggest problem - A Rivaled Anders will talk about Hawke hating Mages and supporting the Templars, even though I play a character that supports Mages and despises Templars. Rivalry doesn't check any plot-flags for it's facts, it just assumes that you've done these things and dumps you in the Mage-Hater boat, which is a glaringly obvious flaw of the system.

If that got fixed, if the Friendship/Rivalry system was refined and all the creases got smoothed out, I'd like it a lot more, but as it stands? Comparing the system of DA2 and Origins side by side, as they currently are? I'd have to say I prefer the Origins system, it recognises the choices I've made and I have enough control (with gifts and such) to get the reaction that I would prefer.

But in all honesty? I hate influence systems, I think everything was better when it was tied to conversational flags and not limited by some horrible points system.

[LinksOcarina]

ShadowDragoonFTW wrote...

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.

I admit I need more context to be confident in what I am about to say, but when differences of opinion do happen, is the first option to really fight it out and kill one another? 

I played a game called Jadeclaw once (Chinese fantasy with anthropamorphic animals)  where I was basically an exiled nomad who murdered his brother in law. The party didn't trust me because I was "the other" in the group, and I didn't trust them because they were foreign and strange to me in character. But the thought of them fighting me because I kind of gave the finger to how they did things never crossed through our heads, 

We did play around with that. They didn't trust me but they tolerated me because I was decent with a bow I assume, and I acted as a doorman for this teahouse we would eventually come to own and protect. And when we had to venture forward we did so in a group, and we backed each other up as much as possible in a given situation, despite the lingering mistrust that slowly dissipated. Hell there were moments where I pretty much kidnapped people at night by swordpoint and brought them back to the inn for questioning, which they didn't like at all, especially since one of them was a magistrate-styled lawyer character. 

I guess maybe my own experiences make it seem different to me. I don't know. Vhemently attacking party members over different ideals seems a bit silly when the point is to coexist with the party you're given. I do find it ok that they can leave, which a lot of the characters in Dragon Age II do, but they only leave at big moments which I feel is more approrpiate in terms of the plot. 

I guess what I am saying is, there is no wrong way of acting here because its impossible to predict how people will behave. Its easy in hindsight to say that the characters would disagree so much they would leave, but then they have little character or complexity to them if they did. 

[Jzadek72]

I do - it's one of the few things I liked more in DA2.

[daft inquisitor]

@LinksOcarina - Killing the characters in-game is never the first choice, but sometimes it comes to that point.

Context-wise, our party was on the trail of an evil necromancer that was trying to... well, basically rip the veil between the material plane and afterlife into pieces. Bad stuff. We're almost at the big bad necromancer's lair -- literally a few yards away from him -- and our party assassin decides it would be funny to cut the rope bridge and have everyone fall to their deaths. Yeah. That one, it was kind of necessary to kill him.

It's all contextual. It's about how much one person disagrees with the party, and to what extent they're willing to go to show that disagreement. Like Anders with the Chantry. That was a disagreement, and he went to EXTREMELY UNNECESSARY LENGTHS (IMO) to display his disagreement.

I'm really glad that DA2 actually gave us the choice of what to do with Anders after that. It's the only time in the entire game I felt I actually had control over who I allowed to be in my entourage and for which reasons. And that, right there, I think is a crying shame.

And I don't see why it should only be at the big decisions that people would decide they've had enough. If you spend (literally) years just disagreeing with a party member over EVERYTHING, not giving them an inch, and doing nothing to make them want to stay, then there's no logical reason that they would wait for a moral event horizon to leave. That's what a lot of players are arguing, and I agree. It just doesn't make sense why these people would stay with Hawke if he's treating them like crap and not even acknowledging their decisions on any given matter.

Modifié par ShadowDragoonFTW, 09 janvier 2013 - 10:33 .

[Gazardiel]

ShadowDragoonFTW wrote...

Context-wise, our party was on the trail of an evil necromancer that was trying to... well, basically rip the veil between the material plane and afterlife into pieces. Bad stuff. We're almost at the big bad necromancer's lair -- literally a few yards away from him -- and our party assassin decides it would be funny to cut the rope bridge and have everyone fall to their deaths. Yeah. That one, it was kind of necessary to kill him.

Was said assassin Chaotic Random, perchance? 

And I don't see why it should only be at the big decisions that people would decide they've had enough. If you spend (literally) years just disagreeing with a party member over EVERYTHING, not giving them an inch, and doing nothing to make them want to stay, then there's no logical reason that they would wait for a moral event horizon to leave. That's what a lot of players are arguing, and I agree. It just doesn't make sense why these people would stay with Hawke if he's treating them like crap and not even acknowledging their decisions on any given matter.

It would be fun to have a more dynamic companion approval system where you could have this slow creep of disdain and heel-dragging over time (and a corresponding way to try to amend things).  Even in little ways, like a companion refusing to go on a quest with you because you've been a jerk to them lately (in the DA2 act system, maybe for the rest of that act, then three years later, they are willing to give you a chance again) could keep things interesting. 

When Isabela refused to go with me to talk to the Arishok, for example, it was a refreshing surprise.  I know that some players who are playing strategically would get frustrated, so it could be enabled with an options switch (for people more interested in story/character development). 

[daft inquisitor]

Gazardiel wrote...

It would be fun to have a more dynamic companion approval system where you could have this slow creep of disdain and heel-dragging over time (and a corresponding way to try to amend things).  Even in little ways, like a companion refusing to go on a quest with you because you've been a jerk to them lately (in the DA2 act system, maybe for the rest of that act, then three years later, they are willing to give you a chance again) could keep things interesting. 

I do like the idea of that. That sounds really fun. 

[Ellyria]

Sylvanpyxie wrote...

Friendship/Rivalry system - who really likes it?

I could like it, I think it has more potential than the "Ply them with Gifts" affection system, but it has a lot of flaws at the moment.

The lack of recognition for character choices is the biggest problem - A Rivaled Anders will talk about Hawke hating Mages and supporting the Templars, even though I play a character that supports Mages and despises Templars. Rivalry doesn't check any plot-flags for it's facts, it just assumes that you've done these things and dumps you in the Mage-Hater boat, which is a glaringly obvious flaw of the system.

If that got fixed, if the Friendship/Rivalry system was refined and all the creases got smoothed out, I'd like it a lot more, but as it stands? Comparing the system of DA2 and Origins side by side, as they currently are? I'd have to say I prefer the Origins system, it recognises the choices I've made and I have enough control (with gifts and such) to get the reaction that I would prefer.

But in all honesty? I hate influence systems, I think everything was better when it was tied to conversational flags and not limited by some horrible points system.

I love you. 

Let's go back to the KOTOR method of companion affection, please? 

[Ageless Face]

I completely agree. I don't have much problem with the system itself (I like it better than the approval system), but I dislike that it affects my decisions in-game in order to gain points, or how I needed to caculate who to bring to quests based not on their skills, but on their F/R points. (BTW, I'm seriously glad I'm not the only one who checks the wiki before every goddamm mission).

I like how it handelded in DA:O; I could be a total jerk with Alistair by my side, or give candies to children with Morrigan, and still I had no problem gaining 100 approval from them. In DA2 however, if you didn't bring a certain companion with you enough times, or did one or two things they didn't like, and you can forget about that bar flashing with blue or red color.

[rak72]

I like the F/R system, but I would still like for the companion to actually hate you as well. I also found it strange that the companions that are essentially indifferent to you end up the ones turning on you.

[Sylvanpyxie]

Let's go back to the KOTOR method of companion affection, please?

Love you too, Cupcake, and I agree.

I don't understand the point in trying to balance an influence system. They're not only impossible to balance and extremely limiting to character content, but they encourage meta-gaming on a huge scale.

I don't know why a second-rate, broken, easily manipulated mega-gaming points system is considered more effective than the good old "reaction to action" system of KOTOR.

When was it actually decided that influence works better than conversation flags?

Modifié par Sylvanpyxie, 09 janvier 2013 - 04:52 .