39 réponses à ce sujet

[TCBC_Freak]

Tootles FTW wrote...

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.

I like this, it gives the idea that you can explain yourself, even if it wont matter to the NPC I would like to be able to have a chance to explain. There is an event sort of like this in DA2, with Fenris, you meet that slave and you can hire her to work for you, Fenris disapproves at first and you can make it worse, but you can also explain, "I'm going to pay her," or whatever and he understands that you are trying to help her (because she has no real skills other than being a slave and is likely to end up in a bad way if you don't help her, my logic anyway). I wish more quests gave you a chance to explain and negate or increase a party member's reaction.

Modifié par TCBC_Freak, 28 juin 2013 - 03:02 .

[Swoopdogg]

 Yeah it was almost as if your companions never talked about anything that was going on with each other.

Morrigan: "So did you hear? He killed all the elves."

Lelianna: "what? That's horrible! And yoU MIGHT HAVE MENTIONED THAT BEFORE I SLEPT WITH HIM I FEEL SO WRONG NOW."

But none of that went on.

I mean you get back to camp after doing some really controversial thing and your companions are just like 

[Azaron Nightblade]

Swoopdogg wrote...

Lelianna: "what? That's horrible! And yoU MIGHT HAVE MENTIONED THAT BEFORE I SLEPT WITH HIM I FEEL SO WRONG NOW."

I'm sure she felt like that sometimes with my Blood Mage Warden.
The same way Ashara feels about my Darkside Sorceror on SWTOR; "He can be such a jerk sometimes, but I still love him!"

[JWvonGoethe]

TCBC_Freak wrote...

Tootles FTW wrote...

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.

I like this, it gives the idea that you can explain yourself, even if it wont matter to the NPC I would like to be able to have a chance to explain. There is an event sort of like this in DA2, with Fenris, you meet that slave and you can hire her to work for you, Fenris disapproves at first and you can make it worse, but you can also explain, "I'm going to pay her," or whatever and he understands that you are trying to help her (because she has no real skills other than being a slave and is likely to end up in a bad way if you don't help her, my logic anyway). I wish more quests gave you a chance to explain and negate or increase a party member's reaction.

My thoughts exactly. Another instance of it was if you killed the Dalish before recruiting Zevran he would bring you up on it at the party camp. Shale would ask what happened with Carridan and the Anvil if she wasn't there at the time. Also, I think Leliana was angry with the Warden if the ashes were defiled when she wasn't there, but I always take her with me on that quest, so I'm not sure. That type of thing should happen as a matter of course, rather than being the exception.

Modifié par JWvonGoethe, 28 juin 2013 - 05:55 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Ryzaki wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

What if you soloed it?

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

I completely agree.  This is one of the first things I test when a new approval system comes along.  Most games fail that test.

[Vaeliorin]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
What if you soloed it?

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

I completely agree.  This is one of the first things I test when a new approval system comes along.  Most games fail that test.

You forgot "and any potential witnesses." If someone saw you do something of note, they might gossip about it, your companions might hear rumors, and, if it was something that would matter to them, they might confront you about it. Of course, you'd need the ability to notice, potentially hunt down if they initialy escaped you, and prevent any witnesses from talking.

The above is something I'd like to see in a game, but it's probably outside the scope of any game we're likely too see in the relatively near future.

[Maria Caliban]

Given that the majority of quests and side-quests involve companion approval gains or losses, I see two possible problems with this.

1. I get inundated with the +friend and +rivalry pop-ups because now I get them for every companion instead of the three I travel with.

2. I am allowed to disable those pop-ups so when I return to camp after doing a dozen or so side quests and two main quests, I now have companions who hate me or love me, and I have no clue as to why.

[Crushor]

Tootles FTW wrote...

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.

This is the way approval system should work. And i guess there could be more than one party member who doesnt approve your decisions but you could just talk to all of them. I would be hugely dissappointed if non-present companions dont react in any way like in two earlier games.

[Tarek]

for some reason I remember pissing on andraste ashes and wyen going besreker on me XD

I loled so hard but reloaded

[Eveangaline]

The chance to lie to companions that weren't present would be great

[Sylvius the Mad]

Eveangaline wrote...

The chance to lie to companions that weren't present would be great

And if they think they already know the truth from some other source, that might be an excellent oppotunity for a Persuasion skillcheck.

[Eveangaline]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Eveangaline wrote...

The chance to lie to companions that weren't present would be great

And if they think they already know the truth from some other source, that might be an excellent oppotunity for a Persuasion skillcheck.

"What? You trust that other companion over me?"

[Thomas Andresen]

Eveangaline wrote...

"What? You trust that other companion over me?"

Replace "other companion" with "that person". Depending on situation, your companions might not have heard what happened from another companion.

I still think your tone when interacting with other people should influence your companions attitude towards you, albeit in a much smaller way than your actions does. A somewhat recent update to SWTOR did something to this effect.

[Steppenwolf]

I agree with the logic is this wholeheartedly. DA][ just didn't present you with any decisions that actually mattered. There was nothing to do that would have been enough to firmly endear one companion to you and force another companion to take up arms against you until the very end, but that decision didn't matter either.

[Maria Caliban]

Isabela staying with you or leaving actually mattered.

It was simply a build up of a number of decisions instead of a single 'Isabela loves you/hates you' decision.