6 réponses à ce sujet

[Wulfram]

The article at Game informer on romances says

Criticisms regarding stock romances and approval ratings
dictating relationships have been looming. Fans should be happy to know that
approval ratings are playing a different role this time around. "Previously, we
had a lot of the follower content gated by your approval rating. Whereas what
we're doing now, we're having a lot more of your content event-driven," Gaider
says. "The approval you're at informs the nature of the conversation."
That means you shouldn't have to agree on everything to
befriend or romance another character. "They're like, 'Yes, you've chosen a
thing that I disagree with, but we're good friends,'" Laidlaw says. "So that's
going to change the color and tone of [those interactions], so [they're] more
nuanced. I think that's going to take them beyond what's been done in the
past."

Which is interesting, but a little confusing. 

Is it possible to have a romance with low approval?

Is it saying that approval is basically about whether the character approves or disapproves of the PC's actions, rather than whether or not they like you?  Which would make it rather more like Friendship/Rivalry than the DA2 system? 

If it ends up being the Friendship/Rivalry system without the neutrality doldrums, that could be pretty great actually.

Is it possible for the character to end up just plain disliking/hating the PC, or is it always going to be the "disagree, but good friends" thing mentioned?

Modifié par Wulfram, 28 août 2013 - 08:59 .

[David Gaider]

Wulfram wrote...
Is it possible to have a romance with low approval?

To a point. You cannot begin a romance at negative approval, however.

Is it saying that approval is basically about whether the character approves or disapproves of the PC's actions, rather than whether or not they like you?  Which would make it rather more like Friendship/Rivalry than the DA2 system?

It's based on their approval of your actions. Ultimately it's closer to DAO's approval system than DA2's, but without DAO's system of low approval locking out interactions with your party members. The majority of interactions (the ones that aren't directly approval-related) are gated by events in the game, not your approval level. The type of interaction you have in those instances varies by their approval.

Is it possible for the character to end up just plain disliking/hating the PC, or is it always going to be the "disagree, but good friends" thing mentioned?

It is possible for a party member to end up hating the PC if approval gets low enough, yes, and it can come to a crisis point with that character-- at which point they may even leave for good. Or other things.

Modifié par David Gaider, 28 août 2013 - 10:37 .

[David Gaider]

Greylycantrope wrote...
Aw, I'll miss the rivalry relationships.

Rivalry not being a bad thing but just a different type of relationship was something that, I think, wasn't easily communicated-- particularly to those having played DAO. So we were faced with either trying to do a better job of explaining it (like with some kind of tutorial) or going back to "friendship good, rivalry bad" ...which, I think, is a bit more intuitive anyhow. So long as rivalry doesn't mean the player is locked out of any interesting content with the follower (and thus chances to regain friendship), I think it still works.

[David Gaider]

AelixVII wrote...
Perhaps it depends on what the action was, for instance, Wynne knew pretty fast when my second Warden desecrated the ashes despite me leaving her at camp because in her words, the news travelled fast.

Gossipy party members. <_<

As before, the big actions (which, in DAI, are pretty public anyhow) will be known by everyone. The smaller stuff will be reacted to only by those followers in your immediate party.

[Allan Schumacher]

In Exile wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Hmmmmm. This could be cool.

Although... the events that cause further movement of relationships sounds suspiciously like the DA2 model, where we couldn't say anything to our companions until we had reached the next Act.

The DA:O conversations were just big getting to know you conversations that DA2 cut. All they need to do is add those back in. 

DAO had conversations that were gated based upon what things you had accomplished so far in the game, as well.

[David Gaider]

In Exile wrote...
That's true, and I wasn't very precise in my post. But my recollection was that the majority of the "talk anywhere, at the start of the game" conversations were either background on the characters or background on the game's lore. For example, Alistair has a huge conversation tree on the GWs.

No, the main difference between DAO and DA2 conversations with the party members was the lack of random questions-- being able to to ask the character questions about their past or about the lore. The full conversations-- as in the ones that actually progressed their plots or relationships, were gated (mostly by approval level). DA2 had more content on the plot side, as in the one plot per act (as opposed to DAO, which simply had one short plot per party member), though I think the perception of many people is that those plots were simply quests and not really "part" of the character's interactions.

We sort of hit a middle ground in DAI. There are the random questions you can ask the party member, similar to DAO, and we're down to one plot again (which is part of their development arc). They have the full conversations which are primarily gated by event, as mentioned (though these depend on the player seeking them out, usually-- no more missions demanding you seek the party member out). You still cannot talk to them anywhere in the world (there's not even the option to click on them outside of "safe" areas), but there are certain conversations that can initiate elsewhere, depending on whether they're present.

[Allan Schumacher]

Ambient conversations still exist.