1913 réponses à ce sujet

[DarthSliver]

Pallando wrote...

They discuss approval a bit in this article, and it seems they view the characters as a way to measure the player's opinion on key subjects...
That's why, as someone already mentioned some months ago, it could be nice to have two values in our relationships with the characters: 

• Respect (or approval)
• Affection

Even if you disagree with a character on some topics, she/he/it might still like you for your overall behaviour towards her/him/it...
We could see the approval/respect of your companions as an incomplete referential of your morality:
if you don't like slavery and don't think mages should be locked up, except blood mages maybe, that life should be enjoyed, but that you can't refuse to help people in need, your morality-meter reads something like:
0.5 * Fenris + 0.8 * Anders - 0.2 * Merrill + 0.6 * Isabella.

That being said, you might still really like Fenris, despise Anders and date Merrill...
But with an approval system that needs to be maxed out to get bonuses, you often end up meta-gaming... 

[*]I approve of this ^^, I often find myself metagaming to get choices i favor to apply[*]

[fiveforchaos]

Pallando wrote...

They discuss approval a bit in this article, and it seems they view the characters as a way to measure the player's opinion on key subjects...
That's why, as someone already mentioned some months ago, it could be nice to have two values in our relationships with the characters: 

• Respect (or approval)
• Affection

Even if you disagree with a character on some topics, she/he/it might still like you for your overall behaviour towards her/him/it...
We could see the approval/respect of your companions as an incomplete referential of your morality:
if you don't like slavery and don't think mages should be locked up, except blood mages maybe, that life should be enjoyed, but that you can't refuse to help people in need, your morality-meter reads something like:
0.5 * Fenris + 0.8 * Anders - 0.2 * Merrill + 0.6 * Isabella.

That being said, you might still really like Fenris, despise Anders and date Merrill...
But with an approval system that needs to be maxed out to get bonuses, you often end up meta-gaming... 

[*]
I really do like the idea of differentiating the difference between Respect and Affection in some form. It seems more realistic that way. Take Fenris for example. As a character he's not going to respect anyone who sides with/makes deals with slavers such actions will cause him to loose respect for the character, too many respect points lost, and he'll leave. However, as much as he dislikes mages, he might still be able to respect, though disagree entirely, with someone who supports mages. This is where the friendship/rivalry systems comes in, supporting Mages earns rivalry points, but doesn't make you loose respect points, supporting slavers makes you gain rivalry and loose respect points.

[Ilidan_DA]

http://www.gameinfor...-questions.aspx

[Nerdage]

I'm actually a little disappointed we ended up with the friendly, supportive Varric, or at least that no other character filled the role he left, because now I'm picturing a more Saemon Havarian-like character and I love it. The whole "you don't need to like them" thing is good but they never really earn your dislike, and they mostly soften up to you after not too long anyway; most people seem to just take an immediate dislike to some characters and that's that.

A character who betrays you as often as not, who you know full well you can't trust, but is roguish and dashing with it would be great to have around, not necessarily as a companion but just someone you have dealings with. There haven't been enough wild cards in DA so far I think.

[Angrywolves]

Well Loghain was the ultimate betrayer.
Petrice from DA2 was certainly a wild card.
I suspect they'll be some in DAI.
Just don't want too many.

[Nerdage]

You don't really know Loghain when he betrays you, and he doesn't betray you so much as he makes a grand political maneuver that you just happen to be on the wrong side of. Also, after getting to know him he's basically honourable. And after the first time, Petrice becomes a known evil really. Plus, neither are roguish enough or dashing enough to get away with it.

Isabella's closer to what I really want, but afterwards there's a good chance she disappears forever which spoils the fun, and it's only really the one time anyway.

[Angrywolves]

shrugs.
I will always think of Loghain as a betrayer.
I realise some people have read the book involving Loghain and Maric with events that predate DAO and they may be inclined to be sympathetic to Loghain .
They can have that view if they want to.
I have my own.

[SkittlesKat96]

Pre-alpha gameplay looks interesting. I really hope the release version of the game doesn't have a scroll menu though.

[ManchesterUnitedFan1]

nerdage, Zevran seems to fit that exact description.

[cindercatz]

Pallando wrote...

They discuss approval a bit in this article, and it seems they view the characters as a way to measure the player's opinion on key subjects...
That's why, as someone already mentioned some months ago, it could be nice to have two values in our relationships with the characters: 

• Respect (or approval)
  Affection

Even if you disagree with a character on some topics, she/he/it might still like you for your overall behaviour towards her/him/it...
We could see the approval/respect of your companions as an incomplete referential of your morality:
if you don't like slavery and don't think mages should be locked up, except blood mages maybe, that life should be enjoyed, but that you can't refuse to help people in need, your morality-meter reads something like:
0.5 * Fenris + 0.8 * Anders - 0.2 * Merrill + 0.6 * Isabella.

That being said, you might still really like Fenris, despise Anders and date Merrill...
But with an approval system that needs to be maxed out to get bonuses, you often end up meta-gaming... 

I love this idea. Maclimes does a great job of presenting it there. The first time it came up I can find (It may have been earlier, but I can't find it right now.) is in this thread:
http://social.biowar...37247/2#7242057


I was responding to Masako52's post. I've supported it ever since.  Later on, can't find the thread, I made a point about the ability of a character to betray you or not depending on the issue stance, and romance/friend or rival/despise based on the affection level.

As in, if a character has affection for you but is on the opposite side of a faction/issue dispute, they could potentially become a double agent spying against you even while romanced (unless fully committed) or leave but refuse to meet you in battle when you cross paths as enemies later on, or if both bars are in the negative, outright betray you in a crisis. If they agree with you but despise you, they could become a grudging ally and be constantly at your throat, or support the cause but attempt to undermine you personally. If both are positive, they become your staunch personal supporter and friend, or a lover and partner. It allows for grudging allies and affectionate enemies that don't have to be predetermined.

I've since decided we may not need the meters, but I support a two bar system, even if it's under the hood. There are so many possibilities. Maybe a better way to differentiate the bars is affection and stance or support, something along those lines.


Edit: I think it's better at this point if maybe Affection is visible, but the stance rating is not. That way, any betrayals have a better chance of taking you by surprise. There should be some way to make sure the player is informed of the mechanic, but hide the actual value or switch (in the case of extreme decisions), so that the player doesn't really know in any given circumstance if they've crossed the line with their companion until it's too late. So you know it can happen, but at least the first time, there can be genuine surprise when it does.

Modifié par cindercatz, 24 août 2013 - 02:41 .

[In Exile]

nerdage wrote...
A character who betrays you as often as not, who you know full well you can't trust, but is roguish and dashing with it would be great to have around, not necessarily as a companion but just someone you have dealings with. There haven't been enough wild cards in DA so far I think.

Why wouldn't you just drive a sword through that person's throat at the first betrayal? 

[Nerdage]

In Exile wrote...

nerdage wrote...
A character who betrays you as often as not, who you know full well you can't trust, but is roguish and dashing with it would be great to have around, not necessarily as a companion but just someone you have dealings with. There haven't been enough wild cards in DA so far I think.

Why wouldn't you just drive a sword through that person's throat at the first betrayal? 

Some characters are just too roguish to kill; it's the only reason to spare Zevran when you first meet him, let's be honest. Besides which, not all of us kill everyone we meet, especially not if they're entertaining. The ability to stitch them up in return would be fun though.

Like Isabella vs Castillon; he's been hunting her for years, but when they finally meet again she doesn't just stab him in the neck, she cons him out of his ship and they part ways. I want to be able to do things like that, because it's far more fun I think.

I don't know if you've played swtor but there's a similar character in the smuggler story, (spoiler)Skavak(/spoiler). He's such a fun enemy to have because of the back-and-fourth setups and gibes I'd have loved to keep him around. I guess story progression demands that some rivals just be taken care of for good, but once in a while it could be fun not to just to make life interesting.

Modifié par nerdage, 24 août 2013 - 06:24 .

[Angrywolves]

Some players kill Zev anyway.
The concept of the charming rogue is lost on them.
My Inquisitor wouldn't put up with a constant betrayer.
Too unrealistic to expect most players to do so.

[In Exile]

nerdage wrote...
Some characters are just too roguish to kill; it's the only reason to spare Zevran when you first meet him, let's be honest.

I can't think of a single in-game reason to keep Zevran alive other than a desire for a painless death on the part of the Warden. I'd never kill Zev because he's obviously a party member, but trusting him is just bonkers. 

Besides which, not all of us kill everyone we meet, especially not if they're entertaining. The ability to stitch them up in return would be fun though.

I think there's a big difference when you've been betrayed, but I don't use that word lightly. For example, I don't consider what Isabeall did with the tome of Koslun to be a betrayal. 

Like Isabella vs Castillon; he's been hunting her for years, but when they finally meet again she doesn't just stab him in the neck, she cons him out of his ship and they part ways. I want to be able to do things like that, because it's far more fun I think.

But betrayal is different than an antagonistic relationship, and someone in the party is different than someone outside it. 

He's such a fun enemy to have because of the back-and-fourth setups and gibes I'd have loved to keep him around. I guess story progression demands that some rivals just be taken care of for good, but once in a while it could be fun not to just to make life interesting. 

That's my IRL reason for leaving everyone alive, but I can never thing of a good reason in-game. 

Modifié par In Exile, 24 août 2013 - 09:10 .

[Nerdage]

Angrywolves wrote...

Some players kill Zev anyway.
The concept of the charming rogue is lost on them.
My Inquisitor wouldn't put up with a constant betrayer.
Too unrealistic to expect most players to do so.

Of course some players kill Zevran, it is a choice after all, but the objective isn't to make situations in which every player will likely do the same thing - that's almost the opposite of what they say in the article after all, and kind of undermines the point of choices.

But I think the fact that other people are willing to not only let Zevran live after he tries to assassinate them, but actually let him follow them around and live alongside them for no other reason (initially) than his being funny and smooth-talking means it's far from unrealistic to expect such a character to do very well.

And just for clarification, when I say "betray" I don't mean Bartrand-like betrayal, not if it's a companion or someone we're meant to voluntarily interact with anyway, I mean things like Saemon and the Gith sword, or Isabella and the tome, where we're just dropped in it by them for their own goals without warning - I'm including betrayals of trust. Can't really think of a better word... 

Modifié par nerdage, 24 août 2013 - 09:54 .

[Nerdage]

In Exile wrote...

nerdage wrote...
Some characters are just too roguish to kill; it's the only reason to spare Zevran when you first meet him, let's be honest.

I can't think of a single in-game reason to keep Zevran alive other than a desire for a painless death on the part of the Warden. I'd never kill Zev because he's obviously a party member, but trusting him is just bonkers. 

He's such a fun enemy to have because of the back-and-fourth setups and gibes I'd have loved to keep him around. I guess story progression demands that some rivals just be taken care of for good, but once in a while it could be fun not to just to make life interesting. 

That's my IRL reason for leaving everyone alive, but I can never thing of a good reason in-game. 

It wouldn't really work in a game with such an urgent story I know, which is kind of why Varric would've been so great for it; it's not like you'd be afraid of him getting in the way of your fighting the blight or anything like that, you're just going from day to day, and unless he was a direct danger it would be pretty easy to justify not killing him (presonally I need a good reason to kill someone, not to spare them, but either way). In that case I think even "because he's entertaining/exciting" is a good enough in-game reason, at least it is for me.

Also, you don't need an in-game reason to trust, that's almost the point that you don't have one.

Modifié par nerdage, 24 août 2013 - 09:46 .

[azarhal]

In Exile wrote...

nerdage wrote...
Some characters are just too roguish to kill; it's the only reason to spare Zevran when you first meet him, let's be honest.

I can't think of a single in-game reason to keep Zevran alive other than a desire for a painless death on the part of the Warden. I'd never kill Zev because he's obviously a party member, but trusting him is just bonkers.

In my first DAO playthrough, Zevran betrayed me. I now kill him the first chance I get everytime I replay DAO.

[DarkKnightHolmes]

Angrywolves wrote...

Well Loghain was the ultimate betrayer.
Petrice from DA2 was certainly a wild card.
I suspect they'll be some in DAI.
Just don't want too many.

I'd say depending on your character, Anders was the ultimate betrayer. He asks you to help him cure his problem which is a total lie, forces you to distract the Grand Cleric and even insults your friendship if you question him about it and then nukes the Chantry.

[Jedi Master of Orion]

Yeah, for me in my first DA 2 play through. Isabella and Anders both betrayed me, and it was actually probably the most powerful and tragic example of backstabbing I can remember experiencing in a RPG. Especially the latter. In both cases, while yeah it was to faciliate something that always happpens in the narrative, but they were both examples of someone the PC thought was their friend doing something that explictly ruined everything he'd been working to achieve.

Modifié par Jedi Master of Orion, 24 août 2013 - 10:45 .

[Angrywolves]

Anders and Isabela's betrayals are part of the storyline .
You can give Isabela to the Ashirok if you want to.
I refuse to do that and fight him.
As for Anders you can stab him after the chantry explodes.
Wasn't a big fan of that in DA2 as it proved hawke was at the mercy of events he couldn't stop or prevent.
Definitely do not want that in DAI.

[Fredward]

DarkKnightHolmes wrote...
I'd say depending on your character, Anders was the ultimate betrayer. He asks you to help him cure his problem which is a total lie, forces you to distract the Grand Cleric and even insults your friendship if you question him about it and then nukes the Chantry.

Even worse if you romanced him. Man my Hawke was so mad. She would've helped him if he had just asked. But no, lie instead. He was soooo close to being stabbed.



Anyone know if the character creator is gonna be shown/discussed?

[Parmida]

Foopydoopydoo wrote...

DarkKnightHolmes wrote...
I'd say depending on your character, Anders was the ultimate betrayer. He asks you to help him cure his problem which is a total lie, forces you to distract the Grand Cleric and even insults your friendship if you question him about it and then nukes the Chantry.

Even worse if you romanced him. Man my Hawke was so mad. She would've helped him if he had just asked. But no, lie instead. He was soooo close to being stabbed.



Anyone know if the character creator is gonna be shown/discussed?

I'm gonna drool all over the character creator for hours like a kid in a candy shop. *YAOUM..nom nom nom* 

[Elhanan]

I try and RP my decisions from the character's POV. In DAO, my Cousland Warrior - and one of my first playthroughs - declined to accept Sten or Zev due to their history of murder so soon after the origin events. And in like manner with Anders from DA2, justice is usually swift after the events of the Chantry.

However, in my first playthrough he was spared; simply because I required a Healer due to my novice experience with the mechanics. But overall, I have more fun when using RP to select dialogue and decisions, and do not feel restricted by mechanical choices to succeed.

[blaidfiste]

Foopydoopydoo wrote...

DarkKnightHolmes wrote...
I'd say depending on your character, Anders was the ultimate betrayer. He asks you to help him cure his problem which is a total lie, forces you to distract the Grand Cleric and even insults your friendship if you question him about it and then nukes the Chantry.

Even worse if you romanced him. Man my Hawke was so mad. She would've helped him if he had just asked. But no, lie instead. He was soooo close to being stabbed.



Anyone know if the character creator is gonna be shown/discussed?

That's just how DA2 was written.  Anders MUST blow up the Chantry.  I'm pretty sure many players would, try to talk him out of it (romance/freindship/rivalry) or turn him in/stop him.  So the solution was to have Anders trick Hawke into helping him or building the bomb himself if Hawke does not.

Either way I never kill Anders as I find it satisfying to not kill someone wishing to be killed and doesn't have the guts to kill themselves.

[Elhanan]

blaidfiste wrote...

That's just how DA2 was written.  Anders MUST blow up the Chantry.  I'm pretty sure many players would, try to talk him out of it (romance/freindship/rivalry) or turn him in/stop him.  So the solution was to have Anders trick Hawke into helping him or building the bomb himself if Hawke does not.

Either way I never kill Anders as I find it satisfying to not kill someone wishing to be killed and doesn't have the guts to kill themselves.

First, it does not take any guts to commit suicide, as it is the height of cowardice and selfishness.

Anders was also jarring change from Awakenings, and so was Justice. But it was their combination that made for an interesting alteration to both personalities. And I now wonder if the Corrupted Lyrium had anything to do with this, as a small amt of Lyrium in a ring sounded so lamentingly beautiful in the prior expansion.