39 réponses à ce sujet

[Forst1999]

 First thing, I really like Dragon Age's approval system. However, one thing bugs me: It really provokes meta-gaming. "I want companion X to like me this much to unlock content Y, so I'll leave him behind for quest Z as I can't afford the approval gain/loss it would likely bring (bringing the companion in the dreaded neutral approval ranges)". Now, a little meta-gaming is unavoidable and not necessarily a bad thing, but approval management can become tiresome.
I think that approval changes should also affect companions that are not present, at least in some cases. Most actions of the protagonist aren't done in secret and only known to the people present at the time, the companions generally know what the protagonist is doing. Widely known actions of the protagonist should influence everyone's approval. That way, worrying about exposing companions to content the might influence their approval in unwanted ways would be pointless. The approval would be much more honest.
And it would prevent strange cases like my templar-supporting Hawke being best pals with Anders, just because he was sympathetic and kindly refrained from taking Anders along to hunt down apostates.
DA:O had a few situations that were similar to what I suggest: Alistair reacting to the conclusion of the Redcliffe quest, Wynne and Leliana confronting you at camp after defiling the ashes, Shale attacking you after siding with Branka. Not that I'm asking for as much reaction for everything, but the complete ignorance of all other actions just seems really odd to me.
Things that are done in secret or are of no particular interest to people not present could be extempted, but many actions of the PC are known to the public, and the companions do talk to each other outside of missions, I'd presume.

[Wulfram]

I agree. Non-present companions shouldn't react to things like the tone you use talking to someone, but real decisions should produce a response.

[SongstressKitsune]

I absolutely agree.

Though I suppose it would prevent amusing playthroughs like my blood mage, mage freedom advocate Hawke...who was friends with everyone. Because he was that damn nice.

[LolaLei]

Yeah, it is rather strange. I mean people talk, lol.

[Noctis Augustus]

I definitely agree with you but DAII was just too flawed, there are many things that didn't make sense like using blood magic in front of templars and chantry... people without any sort of consequence. Hopefully DAIII will address those issues, having more than two years of development sure is reassuring at least though I'm still skeptical.

[Jewlie Ghoulie]

I imagine the companions are a bunch of gossipers in my head, so I would like more reactions. Like in Dragon Age 2 or something, if I did something evil to the mages if Anders wasn't around, I want a gloating Fenris to rub it in Anders face and have Anders not hold Hawke in the high and mighty, she's awesome pedistal , if he isn't around. If that makes sense.

[craigdolphin]

Personally I think this would be an opportunity for more gameplay. Obviously, people not present won't know about an action unless someone who was present tells them, or the events become widely known. So maybe the player doesn't want a particular absent companion to know about something? How about if the pc gets an option to convince the other companions to stay quiet about it. There could be all sorts of potential shenanigans that could arise from that. Someone breaks the player's confidence anyway. The companion that was to be kept in the dark then reacts even more negatively to the attempted coverup, as well as the original action.

It would be pretty cool IMO. But I suspect that the logistics of implementing such a concept would probably put the kibosh on it.

[Jewlie Ghoulie]

craigdolphin wrote...

Personally I think this would be an opportunity for more gameplay. Obviously, people not present won't know about an action unless someone who was present tells them, or the events become widely known. So maybe the player doesn't want a particular absent companion to know about something? How about if the pc gets an option to convince the other companions to stay quiet about it. There could be all sorts of potential shenanigans that could arise from that. Someone breaks the player's confidence anyway. The companion that was to be kept in the dark then reacts even more negatively to the attempted coverup, as well as the original action.

It would be pretty cool IMO. But I suspect that the logistics of implementing such a concept would probably put the kibosh on it.

That would be cool! 

[Xhon12]

I agree with everything I have read so far. Maybe not every companion is a gossiper, but Isabela would fill those blanks.

[esper]

Unless we espicially tell people to keep quiet, approval should affect non-present party members too. It sort of break my immersion that it doesn't because all three dragon age game gave me the distinct impression that the companions gossiped about everything.

That said, I got the impression that people didn't like it in awakening. Maybe because it makes approval too hard to game.

[Pallando]

There was a short discussion about it here:
http:/social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/371/index/14200303/1#14200518

Modifié par Pallando, 14 mai 2013 - 11:38 .

[Vlk3]

I agree. Major decisions during missions should be known to companions (some of the details not necessarily, though).

[Eveangaline]

Somewhat agreed, but at the same time I'd like to be able to do things behind my companions back (like how you can lie to shale about what happened with carriden)

[PsychoBlonde]

 Ideally, I'd like it if the characters weren't so one-note they feel the need to register approval or disapproval over every freakin thing.  None of this OMG YOU WERE MEAN TO A MAGE!! FROWNY FACE!!! stuff.  Fark, Anders almost murders a mage before you stop him.  I would actually rather have approval/disapproval not trigger off trivial stuff--instead, give them an actual dialog line that says "Hawke, that was kinda mean" or similar.  Then, if you tell them to buzz off or give them some insane statement like "ALL MAGES DESERVE TO BE SLAPPED!!!" you might trigger an approval drop for being, well, an enormous ****.

For big situations that you handle, yeah, you should get approval or non-approval or whatever regardless of whether they're in the party at the time or not, because they're going to hear that you burned the Circle to the ground and slaughtered everybody who tried to get out.  If you pee in their sacred holy artifact and dance around singing Trololo, yes, they should hear about it and be just slightly upset.

But, seriously, do you go around with your friends constantly scribbling down every inane thing they say and rating it on some kind of friendship meter?  No.  If they do something you don't like, you SAY SO, you don't KEEP SCORE.

[Tootles FTW]

I wouldn't like a floating "Anders Disapproves -15" to appear in the side corner if Anders is back in Kirkwall and I just kicked a mage in the daddy-bags on the Wounded Coast. I would, however, be up for that instigating a conversation when I get back where he confronts me on whether or not I kicked a mage in the daddy-bags, wherein I can either soothe him or brush him off. Perhaps he won't even respond to the soothing and you'll net Disapproval/Rivalry regardless, whatevs, but just as long as I am present for the reaction rather than alerted to it via text.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I think we should be able to keep secrets from our companions. If I go do something solo, why would any of the rest of the party know about it if they're all back at the camp?

[Plaintiff]

Nuts to you. Metagaming is a totally valid way to play, and it's what I'm gonna do.

Modifié par Plaintiff, 27 juin 2013 - 08:16 .

[Lee80]

I could see it working if it was only huge events, such as whipping out a whole town or something. However, I don't think every quest should impact characters that are not present.

I actually think the friendship/rivalry system of Dragon Age 2 was very well done. It's one of my favorite things in playthroughs of the game to plan out which characters I want to rival or friend.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Plaintiff wrote...

Nuts to you. Metagaming is a totally valid way to play, and it's what I'm gonna do.

Absolutely it is.  Metagaming should be permitted.

But it should never be required.

[scootermcgaffin]

ibbikiookami wrote...

I definitely agree with you but DAII was just too flawed, there are many things that didn't make sense like using blood magic in front of templars and chantry... people without any sort of consequence. Hopefully DAIII will address those issues, having more than two years of development sure is reassuring at least though I'm still skeptical.

Yeah, it should go back to DA:O's style where your specializations are tied in with the story and have consequences!

Wait, crap...

[Azaron Nightblade]

Lee80alabama wrote...

I could see it working if it was only huge events, such as whipping out a whole town or something. However, I don't think every quest should impact characters that are not present.

I actually think the friendship/rivalry system of Dragon Age 2 was very well done. It's one of my favorite things in playthroughs of the game to plan out which characters I want to rival or friend.

That's pretty much my take on it too - it would be silly for one of your companions to be all over for something you did in some forgotten ruins deep underground and that didn't even have witnesses beyond your partymembers.
Of course it's entirely possible those partymembers are a bunch of treacherous snitches that feel the need to tell on you the moment they return from the adventure... which would be pretty lame.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Azaron Nightblade wrote...

Of course it's entirely possible those partymembers are a bunch of treacherous snitches that feel the need to tell on you the moment they return from the adventure... which would be pretty lame.

What if you soloed it?

[Who is that Masked Man]

Wulfram wrote...

I agree. Non-present companions shouldn't react to things like the tone you use talking to someone, but real decisions should produce a response.

*one night at camp*

Party Member 1: "So, yeah, he agreed to stay and defend the Chantry like you had wanted him to do."

Party Member 2: "I knew he wouldn't let me down!" *approve +10*

Party Member 1: "Of course, he said it in that really dickish tone he has."

Party Member 2: "Maker, he's such an ass!" *disapprove -10*

[Ryzaki]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Azaron Nightblade wrote...

Of course it's entirely possible those partymembers are a bunch of treacherous snitches that feel the need to tell on you the moment they return from the adventure... which would be pretty lame.

What if you soloed it?

In that case no one should know anything but your PC.

[Jonata]

All companions sign a non-disclosure agreement when they go adventuring with Hawke, The Warden or the Inquisitor. Problem solved.