131 réponses à ce sujet

[In Exile]

David Gaider wrote
... 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.

That was my impression, and part of it came from the fact that character conversations were either appended directly quests (e.g. Fenris in Act 2) as well as the fact that the actual conversations with the characters were quests in the journal. 

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. 

I'm glad to hear that random questions are back - I felt that the random questioning just adds a lot of personalizing and colour to the relationships that you can build with the party members. 

I'm sad to hear we can't click on them outside of safe areas, however. Ambient comentary by party members was really great. 

[AlexanderCousland]

Maria Caliban wrote...

Anders was an easy-going softie?

If Leliana and Aveline were arrogant in your view, I suspect Cassandra and Vivianne will qualify as well.

Anders, haha, "Oh Justice in my head, Help Hawke! I was a class clown until I let Justice in my head and started hitting on your male PC and undermining your whole reason for playing the game because Im so emotional and possesed I can't control myself".

Ander's was weak and mentally fragile, a deserter and unworthy of respect. 

Cassandra wont be treating me like Rhegalian (pansy) I'll gurantee you that, If she does she wont be in my party. 

I dont know Vivianne. 
 
And yes, Leliana and Aveline were arrogant.

[Angrywolves]

There needs a persuasion system and/or gifts.
Otherwise it will be difficult to keep the party intact.

[Daerog]

If you can argue that Leliana was arrogant, you can argue that all the followers were arrogant. But only because Leliana was not arrogant, if we are going by the English definition of the word.

[Ellyria]

It's nice that companions will react based on what you've done. Nothing bothered me in DA2 more than Merrill throwing a fit that I didn't give her the Arulin'Holm or Anders calling me a Templar lover because I rivaled them. I don't like abominations and blood magic, okay guys? It's not about the bigger picture, it is actually all about you. 


Staggered conversations are great too. Mass Effect, Jade Empire, KotOR, they did them wonderfully. DAO felt like you could rush too much, DA2 felt like there wasn't enough, and BG2 almost forced you to pause and walk away from your computer (thank goodness for banter accelerators  ).

Now all we need to do is get rid of that pesky affection bar... 

[AlexanderCousland]

DaerogTheDhampir wrote...

If you can argue that Leliana was arrogant, you can argue that all the followers were arrogant. But only because Leliana was not arrogant, if we are going by the English definition of the word.

Having or revealing and exaggerated sense of one's own importance or abilities.
That's Leliana and it's also Morrigan and Aveline to me.


But that's all subjective.

[OLDIRTYBARON]

So it's back to sucking up to your companions I take it.

I really hope that's not the case. I liked the freedom in DA2 to just act how I wanted to, and if that annoyed people (like, say, Aveline), then that was fine. The game wouldn't punish me for it. Origins punished players who didn't meta-game the approval system. And if you messed up, it was okay, just give them a gift to prove you actually were paying attention.

Hopefully this is all just a fancy way to say "guys it's like Mass Effect where approval doesn't matter so roleplay already."

[Fast Jimmy]

OLDIRTYBARON wrote...

So it's back to sucking up to your companions I take it.

I really hope that's not the case. I liked the freedom in DA2 to just act how I wanted to, and if that annoyed people (like, say, Aveline), then that was fine. The game wouldn't punish me for it. Origins punished players who didn't meta-game the approval system. And if you messed up, it was okay, just give them a gift to prove you actually were paying attention.

Hopefully this is all just a fancy way to say "guys it's like Mass Effect where approval doesn't matter so roleplay already."

The problem was that with DA2, if you just acted how you wanted to, it DID penalize you. You either needed to, as you state, "suck up" to your companions or, conversely, be a total jerk to them. Someone like me, who just wants to say "hey, I don't agree with you all the time, but I'm usually a pretty nice, relaxed person" wound up having middle-of-the-road relationship scores in DA2 without metagaming, which the game gave you no relationship stat bonuses, nor triggered many of the "Questioning Beliefs" type scenarios, or high relationship persuasion checks. 

You couldn't be sympathetic to Mages while not also hating Templars, Blood Mages, the Chantry and a whole host of other things without Anders liking you some time and hating you other times. Which resulted in a neutral relationship score. Meanwhile, saying you hope Mages die and that they should feel honored to live in a cage and fed like animals would result in him wanting to romance you.

That's silly.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 29 août 2013 - 04:36 .

[OLDIRTYBARON]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

OLDIRTYBARON wrote...

So it's back to sucking up to your companions I take it.

I really hope that's not the case. I liked the freedom in DA2 to just act how I wanted to, and if that annoyed people (like, say, Aveline), then that was fine. The game wouldn't punish me for it. Origins punished players who didn't meta-game the approval system. And if you messed up, it was okay, just give them a gift to prove you actually were paying attention.

Hopefully this is all just a fancy way to say "guys it's like Mass Effect where approval doesn't matter so roleplay already."

The problem was that with DA2, if you just acted how you wanted to, it DID penalize you. You either needed to, as you state, "suck up" to your companions or, conversely, be a total jerk to them. Someone like me, who just wants to say "hey, I don't agree with you all the time, but I'm usually a pretty nice, relaxed person" wound up having middle-of-the-road relationship scores in DA2 without metagaming, which the game gave you no relationship stat bonuses, nor triggered many of the "Questioning Beliefs" type scenarios, or high relationship persuasion checks. 

You couldn't be sympathetic to Mages while not also hating Templars, Blood Mages, the Chantry and a whole host of other things with Anders liking you some time and hating you other times. Which resulted in a neutral relationship score, while saying you hope Mages die and that they should feel honored to live in a cage and fed like animals would result in him wanting to romance you.

That's silly.

You make a good point. I didn't experience that problem myself, maybe because I had strong opinions one way or the other on the Chantry, Templars, Circle, et cetera. This new system does worry me though, because while you could have pissing matches with companions in DA2, they were usually settled amiably and didn't result in the companion abandoning you or trying to kill you (!) at camp. I guess some people like that, but I don't see the appeal.

[AmRMa]

David Gaider wrote...

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.

That sounds great in DAO I didn't know to space out the conversations in my first playthrough and I maxed out a lot of companions conversations fairly early in the game.

[Fast Jimmy]

OLDIRTYBARON wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

OLDIRTYBARON wrote...

So it's back to sucking up to your companions I take it.

I really hope that's not the case. I liked the freedom in DA2 to just act how I wanted to, and if that annoyed people (like, say, Aveline), then that was fine. The game wouldn't punish me for it. Origins punished players who didn't meta-game the approval system. And if you messed up, it was okay, just give them a gift to prove you actually were paying attention.

Hopefully this is all just a fancy way to say "guys it's like Mass Effect where approval doesn't matter so roleplay already."

The problem was that with DA2, if you just acted how you wanted to, it DID penalize you. You either needed to, as you state, "suck up" to your companions or, conversely, be a total jerk to them. Someone like me, who just wants to say "hey, I don't agree with you all the time, but I'm usually a pretty nice, relaxed person" wound up having middle-of-the-road relationship scores in DA2 without metagaming, which the game gave you no relationship stat bonuses, nor triggered many of the "Questioning Beliefs" type scenarios, or high relationship persuasion checks. 

You couldn't be sympathetic to Mages while not also hating Templars, Blood Mages, the Chantry and a whole host of other things with Anders liking you some time and hating you other times. Which resulted in a neutral relationship score, while saying you hope Mages die and that they should feel honored to live in a cage and fed like animals would result in him wanting to romance you.

That's silly.

You make a good point. I didn't experience that problem myself, maybe because I had strong opinions one way or the other on the Chantry, Templars, Circle, et cetera. This new system does worry me though, because while you could have pissing matches with companions in DA2, they were usually settled amiably and didn't result in the companion abandoning you or trying to kill you (!) at camp. I guess some people like that, but I don't see the appeal.

I would honestly prefer a two axis system. One for Beliefs, where you can disagree or support someone's core tenets, and Approval, where someone can like you for showing interest/helping them out/etc. This way, you could be friendly with someone, but disagree with what they stand for. Or, on the other side, you could express distate for someone's personality or manners, but still share the same types of beliefs. 

I think that would be a better way of engaging in the relationships, personally. But that's not what we're getting, from what we can tell.

[AmRMa]

FreshIstay wrote...

DaerogTheDhampir wrote...

If you can argue that Leliana was arrogant, you can argue that all the followers were arrogant. But only because Leliana was not arrogant, if we are going by the English definition of the word.

Having or revealing and exaggerated sense of one's own importance or abilities.
That's Leliana and it's also Morrigan and Aveline to me.


But that's all subjective.

Okay Morrigan was a little arrogant but I would describe her as more aloof. Leliana was not arrogant if you talked to her she was a little insecure about how you perceived her and her vision. Aveline was take charge and morally upstanding not arrogant- she knew what she could do and did it, and held herself and people she knew to high standards. She never exagerated her abilites or importance. I guess I don't understand your basis for calling anyone of these female characters arrogant.

[craigdolphin]

I'll try to keep an open mind on it until I've tried it. But honestly this is the first bit of news that leaves me a bit sad.

Not being able to initiate some type of conversation outside 'safe areas/home bases' in DA2 made me feel like my companions stopped being 'people' the moment I left those areas and were reduced to being nothing more than 'combat assets' until I returned to a home base again.

While I agree that, yes, in those circumstances that's primarily what your party members end up being there for (combat), it still creates a jarring disjointed experience for me. I would rather my NPC's felt like 'people' I could interact with throughout the entire in-game experience. And no, IMO, the /game/ initiating a conversation based on some location/event trigger doesn't substitute for the feeling that this NPC is a person who can be interacted with in the same way as the option of a player-initiated conversation. It's a great ingredient in the mix and I would be upset if that too were absent, there's still a missing ingredient for me during significant parts of the game.

That said, I'll wait and see how this new system makes me feel when the time comes. Hopefully you guys manage to find a way to disguise the problem effectively.

[Sharn01]

Actually Aveline was pretty arrogant. She literally believed that if there was something she was not capable of doing or if something was difficult for her that it would be impossible for anyone else. The only time she did not act arrogant was during her romance sub plot with Donnic.

[AlexanderCousland]

AmRMa wrote...

FreshIstay wrote...

DaerogTheDhampir wrote...

If you can argue that Leliana was arrogant, you can argue that all the followers were arrogant. But only because Leliana was not arrogant, if we are going by the English definition of the word.

Having or revealing and exaggerated sense of one's own importance or abilities.
That's Leliana and it's also Morrigan and Aveline to me.


But that's all subjective.

Okay Morrigan was a little arrogant but I would describe her as more aloof. Leliana was not arrogant if you talked to her she was a little insecure about how you perceived her and her vision. Aveline was take charge and morally upstanding not arrogant- she knew what she could do and did it, and held herself and people she knew to high standards. She never exagerated her abilites or importance. I guess I don't understand your basis for calling anyone of these female characters arrogant.

Morrigan was Aloof, I agree, she was also arrogant. I just tolerated her because she was hotter then Leliana. 
If you talk to Leliana, she made up that vision she isnt shy about telling you how she manipulated men and women with her looks and makes them fall for her to get what she wants. She proposed to join my party with a profoundly important LIE presented as a truth. Aveline was a companion I didn't have a choice in bringing along, she was a condescending prude who held her Honor to high and judged other's to quickly. She acted like she was to good to breathe, I almost threw up. Aveline's purpose was proabaly covering your stuff as Guard Captain for 7 yrs...But why do I need her to cover anything for the mighty "Champion of Kirkwall".  And to your last sentence, Im adressing the issue's I have with the character's, not the female character's. 

[AlanC9]

In Exile wrote...

I'm sad to hear we can't click on them outside of safe areas, however. Ambient comentary by party members was really great. 

Well, there's no reason they can't have ambients that aren't triggered by the player clicking on the companion.

Wether they actually will have them, though.....

[Allan Schumacher]

Ambient conversations still exist.

[Fredward]

Meh. I'll miss rivalry. It was an easy way for me to "max out" a relationship while still expressing how I actually felt about them. With the disapproval/approval system I always feel like I'm messing up somehow, or missing stuff if approval drops too much. It's too binary. But since that's not really happening anymore I'll probably maybe get over it.

[AlanC9]

FreshIstay wrote...
If you talk to Leliana, she made up that vision she isnt shy about telling you how she manipulated men and women with her looks and makes them fall for her to get what she wants. She proposed to join my party with a profoundly important LIE presented as a truth. 

I don't recall her saying that she made up the vision. Does anyone have the actual line?

[Icinix]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Ambient conversations still exist.

Will there be scenarios where if you have particular characters with you and pass particular things they might go to a mini cutscene / dialogue options?

[AlanC9]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Ambient conversations still exist.

Thanks.

[wright1978]

David Gaider wrote...

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.

I like the sounds of the middle ground in regards to conversations. By companions being down to one plot, does that mean their plot won't span the arcs like DA2?If that's the case i'd be disappointed. I liked the fact they had their own stuff going on alongside the main plot(Isabela searching for book that had resulted in her losing her boat all the way to the last act where she could get a new boat) 

[Ellanya]

craigdolphin wrote...

I'll try to keep an open mind on it until I've tried it. But honestly this is the first bit of news that leaves me a bit sad.

Not being able to initiate some type of conversation outside 'safe areas/home bases' in DA2 made me feel like my companions stopped being 'people' the moment I left those areas and were reduced to being nothing more than 'combat assets' until I returned to a home base again.
 

This! This! +100
Maybe at list they could tell us - Hey, I"m sorry, but now is not the time for conversations! (or something)-
That would be enough for me to feel they are like real people!

[Dean_the_Young]

David Gaider wrote...

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.

Oh dear, David. Now people are going to insist that you promised that anything they want the party to keep a secret would be kept a secret as long as they (the player) feels it wasn't a 'big' action.


(Though I honestly hope for openly gossipy party members- less of the 'my True Companions would keep an utterly depraved conspiracy for me' theories.)

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 29 août 2013 - 09:17 .

[Dean_the_Young]

Bionuts wrote...

Or Anders not coming with you if you're pro-templar.

The point is good, but I think the answer to that is simpler: have the ideologue have a reason to stick around even if they don't agree.

In the case of an Anders (pro-mage ideologue), if they have a reason to stick around with the player (they know the player is looking for plot artifact X, and they want it) then having them remain still makes sense. It's a 'if I didn't need you to accomplish my goals...', or something similar, which allows a rivalry to be sustained despite disagreement.