34 réponses à ce sujet

[TheButterflyEffect]

I really liked DA2's Friendship/Rivalry dynamic a LOT better than DAO's bland, black and white "love/hate" system.

In context, it makes a lot more sense, and it makes the player's relationship with companions a lot more interesting and realism.

I especially enjoyed the option of having a Friendship or Rivalry romance. Things were just better that way.

Like with Merrill. Friendship sucked because it basically means you're going along with her wasting her life and putting herself in danger. I see Merrill's Rivalmance as Hawke being determined to save her and protect her from herself - he/she loves Merrill, so much that he/she simply cannot bear to lose her to blood magic or demons or whatnot. It was a zillion times better. Very touching as well.

Here's hoping things will be at least somewhat like that this time around?

[TribolMan]

All the rival romances were better than the friend romances

[Sidney]

I really disliked both and for the same reason I hated the Light/Dark mechanic in KoTOR or the good/evil in BG/BG2...they reward only the extremes. There is no upside to being a neutral relationship anymore than being a grey Jedi helped out.

[Jedi Master of Orion]

I'm not sure I liked the Friendship/Rivalry system. Rivalry especially was often counter-intuitive. Sometimes it meant a friend you disagreed with, other times it seemed to mean someone you really hated.

If you had a big disagreement with a companion, it meant that you had to be as mean as possible to someone to get the best result. That and bring them along everywhere just to rub their face in the fact that you were doing something they disproved of. It definitely did not feel like a natural way to strengthen a relationship.

DAO had a simpler idea, but for me it felt like the relationships developed in a more organic fashion.

Modifié par Jedi Master of Orion, 06 août 2013 - 12:48 .

[andy6915]

Jedi Master of Orion wrote...

I'm not sure I liked the Friendship/Rivalry system. Rivalry especially was often counter-intuitive. Sometimes it meant a friend you disagreed with, other times it seemed to mean someone you really hated.

If you had a big disagreement with a companion, it meant that you had to be as mean as possible to someone to get the best result. That and bring them along everywhere just to rub their face in the fact that you were doing something they disproved of. It definitely did not feel like a natural way to strengthen a relationship.

As opposed to always agreeing with party members no matter what and leaving them behind for quests that you knew they would dislike your choices and only bringing them when they would agree with you because disapproval meant their stats would actually go negative if they disliked you too much? That was Origins' system.

[DarkKnightHolmes]

andy69156915 wrote...

Jedi Master of Orion wrote...

I'm not sure I liked the Friendship/Rivalry system. Rivalry especially was often counter-intuitive. Sometimes it meant a friend you disagreed with, other times it seemed to mean someone you really hated.

If you had a big disagreement with a companion, it meant that you had to be as mean as possible to someone to get the best result. That and bring them along everywhere just to rub their face in the fact that you were doing something they disproved of. It definitely did not feel like a natural way to strengthen a relationship.

As opposed to always agreeing with party members no matter what and leaving them behind for quests that you knew they would dislike your choices and only bringing them when they would agree with you because disapproval meant their stats would actually go negative if they disliked you too much? That was Origins' system.

Actually, I pulled the same crap at DA2. Just took companions to missions where they'll agree with me and BAAM! 100% friendships from everyone. I did't hate the friendship/rivalry system but it was pretty much the same thing as approval/disapproval. Only this time, disapproval (Rivalry) also led to unlocking scenes and bonuses whereas DAO only benefited approvals.

Modifié par DarkKnightHolmes, 06 août 2013 - 12:55 .

[devSin]

The system will not be returning as it was in DA2, but they haven't yet said what will be taking its place.

[andy6915]

DarkKnightHolmes wrote...

Actually, I pulled the same crap at DA2. Just took companions to missions where they'll agree with me and BAAM! 100% friendships from everyone.

But you can disagree and not be punished for it. If I completely and utterly disagee with Fenris on mages and I can play with that in mind, and he doesn't get any negative stats or outright leaving the party in anger if I disagree too many times like what happens in DAO if I did the same thing with someone.

[Patchwork]

I preferred the Friendship-Rivalry system (in DAO I just handed out gifts to regain approval) but it lacked subtlety and made assumptions based on where on the metre you were.
With Fenris you couldn't be pro mage freedom and anti slavery. With Anders you couldn't be against his merger with Justice and pro mage. With Merrill it assumed what you did with the knife based on whether you were friends or not.

It's a shame they're getting rid of the system completely imo with a bit of tweaking it would be great.

[Saberchic]

If I had to choose, I'd pick DAO system over DA2. But I know they are revamping the DA2 system, which is good. As mentioned above, the system for DA2 was broken; it only rewarded extremes, and that sucked. I'd rather get disapproval and make it up to the party member later with a gift.

[Mecha Elf]

I didn't like either, but mostly DA2's system. I don't like being told that I'm in a rival/friendship realtionship. I'd rather the character complain to me often or confront me. If dragon age 2 had more conversations between the pc and the companions I think it would've been better.

[Fast Jimmy]

andy69156915 wrote...

DarkKnightHolmes wrote...

Actually, I pulled the same crap at DA2. Just took companions to missions where they'll agree with me and BAAM! 100% friendships from everyone.

But you can disagree and not be punished for it. If I completely and utterly disagee with Fenris on mages and I can play with that in mind, and he doesn't get any negative stats or outright leaving the party in anger if I disagree too many times like what happens in DAO if I did the same thing with someone.

Actually, you are punished for it if you are genuinely a nice person, but disagree with someone on a single principle (similarly, you can agree with someone and be overly aggressive and wind up in the same circumstance).

The middling middle ground of Friendship and Rivalry is as if you had no relationship at all. The DA2 system only benefits you if you are exceptionally nice and agree with someone at every opportunity or you play a jerk and want to disagree with someone at every turn. Attempts at being ACTUALLY diplomatic while also expressing disagreement result in your friends turning against you and you having to kill them.

Also, any system where you get someone to fall in love with you by telling them that you would see everyone of their kind locked up is a fatally flawed system. 

[Sjpelke]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

andy69156915 wrote...

DarkKnightHolmes wrote...

Actually, I pulled the same crap at DA2. Just took companions to missions where they'll agree with me and BAAM! 100% friendships from everyone.

But you can disagree and not be punished for it. If I completely and utterly disagee with Fenris on mages and I can play with that in mind, and he doesn't get any negative stats or outright leaving the party in anger if I disagree too many times like what happens in DAO if I did the same thing with someone.

Actually, you are punished for it if you are genuinely a nice person, but disagree with someone on a single principle (similarly, you can agree with someone and be overly aggressive and wind up in the same circumstance).

The middling middle ground of Friendship and Rivalry is as if you had no relationship at all. The DA2 system only benefits you if you are exceptionally nice and agree with someone at every opportunity or you play a jerk and want to disagree with someone at every turn. Attempts at being ACTUALLY diplomatic while also expressing disagreement result in your friends turning against you and you having to kill them.

Also, any system where you get someone to fall in love with you by telling them that you would see everyone of their kind locked up is a fatally flawed system. 

The rivalry friendship system fellt to me as if it was designed for one playthrough only players. Things have not been given to much thought and often do not add up if more playthroughs, trying to take a different route, are done.

Especially your last sentence Jimmy underlines for me that there has not been much care in how companions might react to certain decisions. Maybe it could not be combined with the technical part of the system or them just being sloppy.

[mopotter]

DarkKnightHolmes wrote...

andy69156915 wrote...

Jedi Master of Orion wrote...

I'm not sure I liked the Friendship/Rivalry system. Rivalry especially was often counter-intuitive. Sometimes it meant a friend you disagreed with, other times it seemed to mean someone you really hated.

If you had a big disagreement with a companion, it meant that you had to be as mean as possible to someone to get the best result. That and bring them along everywhere just to rub their face in the fact that you were doing something they disproved of. It definitely did not feel like a natural way to strengthen a relationship.

As opposed to always agreeing with party members no matter what and leaving them behind for quests that you knew they would dislike your choices and only bringing them when they would agree with you because disapproval meant their stats would actually go negative if they disliked you too much? That was Origins' system.

Actually, I pulled the same crap at DA2. Just took companions to missions where they'll agree with me and BAAM! 100% friendships from everyone. I did't hate the friendship/rivalry system but it was pretty much the same thing as approval/disapproval. Only this time, disapproval (Rivalry) also led to unlocking scenes and bonuses whereas DAO only benefited approvals.

Me too.  DAO give them a bone or dirty undies or wine on a good day.  DA2 just take them when they agree.  

Personally, I don't like the idea of having someone who hates what I do, like Fenris, if rivalry is done right,  will fight with the mage and even Anders will fight with the templars if you do a good job at the rivalry.  Not a fan.  I was much happier having Fenris as LI and having to kill him with sadness because he just couldn't accept fighting with mages.

I don't mind some rivalry options, because that can lead to pretty good dialogue but  I'd also love to have some teasing options somewhere along the line with at least one of the LI.  And really, I don't want every game to have every LI option work out or even every friendship path.    

If i'm playing a mage, sure some templars will not be put off by that, and maybe some who think mages are dangerous can be shown the error of their judgment,  but the ones who hate mages, really shouldn't end up fighting on my side.  

I am interested in seeing what they end up with.

[El Dude 9]

I would like to see both systems used. So I could get more of a Sonic and Shadow type of relationship.

[Fortlowe]

Walking dead had a good system. There is where card tricks in the dark worked out well.

[Iakus]

I think the friendship/rivalry system has great potential. I like the idea of not having to tell companions what they want to hear to raise a meter. The problem was in DA2 it was used in too binary a fashion. Especially when they can turn on you at the very end if you didn't max out one or the other.

[GreyLycanTrope]

Certianly a plus to not have to worry about your companions wondering off. I did like the system, hope it returns.

iakus wrote...

I think the friendship/rivalry system has great potential. I like the idea of not having to tell companions what they want to hear to raise a meter. The problem was in DA2 it was used in too binary a fashion. Especially when they can turn on you at the very end if you didn't max out one or the other.

To me that only happend with Fenris, since I was anti slavery but pro mage. I actually didn't mind having to kill him later as I didn't like the him at all.

[AresKeith]

Greylycantrope wrote...

Certianly a plus to not have to worry about your companions wondering off. I did like the system, hope it returns.

iakus wrote...

I think the friendship/rivalry system has great potential. I like the idea of not having to tell companions what they want to hear to raise a meter. The problem was in DA2 it was used in too binary a fashion. Especially when they can turn on you at the very end if you didn't max out one or the other.

To me that only happend with Fenris, since I was anti slavery but pro mage. I actually didn't mind having to kill him later as I didn't like the him at all.

I find it funny that one of the dialogue options makes him side with you regardless when you see him again

He's such a hypocrite and (Final Fantasy Elf lol) 

[Stella-Arc]

The problem with the Friendship/Rivalry system in my opinion was that you had to be either a friend or a rival with little to no interactions. It was all dependent on quest conversations, once every three years companion quests, or metagaming so you can exploit the system in either making them a friend or a rival. It wasn't natural (and at times, confusing. Why the hell would a rival Fenris side with mages?).

I liked how conversations altered greatly if you were one or the either but you hardly could interact with your companions throughout the game which, I think, was the problem. It was broken. Really broken. The only companion that changed quite a bit depending on what path you were with her was Merrill. If you were her friend, she would still be her naive and bubbly self that believes what she is doing is right. However, as a rival, she's completely different. She isn't an ass, like Aveline or Varric, or more broody or annoying, like Fenris and Anders. Merrill, if rivaled, would be assertive and more aware of the dangers. If you romanced her, it becomes even more apparent. Rivaled Merrill becomes the former First of DAO and not the Pariah (her entire companion arc was a complete clusterf**k but that's a whole 'nother tale). I believe the friendship/rival system was used well with her to an extent which I applaud Mary Kirby for it. I wish they could merge the DA:O and DAII systems and tweak them though.

Modifié par Stella-Arc, 06 août 2013 - 04:50 .

[9TailsFox]

All I want is all companions get +- points in whatever system no matter if they in the party or not. So people stop cry about metagaming "I have to take companion or not take so I don't get bad points."

And I would like if ther was no "lock in", yes Merrill rivalry was much better Hawke was better friend then in friendship. But then I was on full friendship with Merrill and didn't give her mirror shard, she was like "Oh thank you for helping me you such good friend" it's probably plot problem caused by gameplay mechanic.

[9TailsFox]

Stella-Arc wrote...

Why the hell would a rival Fenris side with mages?).

Fenris: I hate mages.
Hawke: I helped you to kill Daenerys man who you hate most, your life better because of me.
Fenris: FINE Hawke we kill templars!

Fenris don's side with mages Fenris side with Hawke.

[Stella-Arc]

Bah....double post....

Modifié par Stella-Arc, 06 août 2013 - 05:30 .

[Stella-Arc]

9TailsFox wrote...

All I want is all companions get +- points in whatever system no matter if they in the party or not. So people stop cry about metagaming "I have to take companion or not take so I don't get bad points."

How in Andraste's flaming knickers would they know what you did if they aren't in the party? They would have to confront you for it to make sense. In Origins, I think there was a moment where you gained or lost points depending on decisons you made...even though they weren't there. I don't know if it was a glitch or not. However, in Connors quest, if <spoilers> if you killed Conner, you had to confront Alistair who isn't pleased. In the search for the Urn of Sacred Ashes, if you didn't bring Leliana or Wynne along, they would confront you back at camp. If you hardened Leliana, she would need to be persuaded (or intimidated) to not leave your camp and if not hardened, she would leave. Wynne leaves.<end spoilers> These were dependent on other requirements and not just on "points". It progessed naturally. In DAII, with your stats being useless, the revamped of the skill trees (and the obsolete of the coercion skill) and the lack of companion interactions (and reactions) was in my opinion the reason why the friendship/rival system was broken. On its own, it fell short. It lacked any sense in relation to everything else. It was made worse when you were "locked" in one path or another. In Origins, the approval/disapproval wasn't perfect but it was dependent on other factors that felt natural.

And we shouldn't need to metagame if the game mechanics didn't force our hand. 

And I would like if ther was no "lock in", yes Merrill rivalry was much better Hawke was better friend then in friendship. But then I was on full friendship with Merrill and didn't give her mirror shard, she was like "Oh thank you for helping me you such good friend" it's probably plot problem caused by gameplay mechanic.

Any points you gained in the friendship path is converted into rival points. I agree that it should have happned even if you reached full friendship. After all, it was a betrayel of trust. Merrill is the only companion, in my honest opinion, whose alignment in the friendship/rival system had any significance to her charactization. However, that was also the reason why her companion arc was more broken then her Eluvian. While she changed, any consequences outside of her characterization did not. Then add the problem of paths being "locked" if reached the point of no return (literally) and you have another ayer of problem added to an already large problem. 

[9TailsFox]

Stella-Arc wrote...

How in Andraste's flaming knickers would they know what you did if they aren't in the party? 

Varick told, Isabela told...You honestly believe Varick will not find out. He knows everything worth knowing. He literary told everything to Cassandra.