65 réponses à ce sujet

[Zyree]

It depended for me. I liked parts of the rival/friendship system and I really liked some of the rival relationships because often I felt you were making people think about their actions rather than just going along with everything they want and do. I didn't play them so much as "I hate everything about you and want you dead" as "I strongly disagree with you, here's why and I hope maybe this will help you in not being so blind of your own actions".

In the end though the only rival relationships I found interesting were Fenris, Anders, and Merril, and the only rivalmance I liked was Anders because he actually seemed to consider more of his actions and his treatment of others, where as his friendmance just seemed very indulgent no matter what he did. I couldn't stand Fenris' rivalmance, even though I never sided with slavers, it just seemed creepy, I also felt that the rival relationship (though not the romance) was good for Merril in some ways, especially since there is no way repairing that mirror of hers is going to work out positively.

But I dunno, maybe the dual system of both approval, friendship/rival would work? I rarely agree with my friends in real life on major issues, but we still get along quite well.

[Veex]

When did rivalry become synonymous with hate? Just because you're competitive with someone doesn't mean you loathe them or have no respect for them.

[Ferretinabun]

I see what Bioware were trying to do with the F/R system, and I tip my hat to them for trying something new. It was, in many ways, a step forward from the DA:O system where approval was always positive - especially as the majority of approval came from gifts, not from conversations or events in the plot, so you basically just bought your companions' approval.

That said it wasn't perfect. The main flaw was that there was no scope for a companion to simply not like you. 'Rivalry' was so easily misunderstood as 'disapproval' because it was what you got when you did things your companions didn't like. The whole idea of 'respecting you as a rival', is a bit nebulous, especially as you earn this accolade by doing things they don't like.

I get the idea of a dual approval system - with approval AND friendship/rivalry, but that sounds complicated, both in terms of building it, and in terms of playing it. What acts would earn you friendship points as opposed to approval points, for example?

I think the best solution would be to go back to a plain approval system, but with combat bonuses for disapproval as well as approval, and have far more approval attached to conversations and plot events, rather than gifts.


In short, everything coming out of this discussion here sounds very encouraging. Goddamn, I can't wait for this game.

Modifié par Ferretinabun, 14 février 2014 - 04:58 .

[CybAnt1]

Veex wrote...

When did rivalry become synonymous with hate?

http://dictionary.re.../browse/rivalry

Synonyms:
1. opposition, antagonism; jealousy.

an·tag·o·nism noun[/i] \\an-ˈta-gə-ˌni-zəm\\: a strong feeling of dislike or hatred : a desire to oppose something you dislike or disagree with

[end]

It would be interesting if they meant rivalry to only be the kind of friendly competiveness you're talking about. I would expect that to manifest as them challenging your leadership and demanding that they be made leader instead.

That never happens. (I'm not saying I wouldn't be interested in seeing it.)

Modifié par CybAnt1, 14 février 2014 - 04:53 .

[Knight of Dane]

I'd like for the numbers to be invisible too.

[David Gaider]

I get people liking the idea of having more than one variable to track. In theory, that sounds like it would be more realistic. In practice, it would be a nightmare. You'd end up doing one of two things: 1) having far less reactivity to the individual variable quadrant in which you end up, or 2) having way more lines.

Seeing as followers already cover one-third of our total word budget, I find it unlikely that we'd balloon them even further. Yes, relationships can indeed be made more realistic if you throw even more variations and words into the mix--but there is a point at which that simply becomes impractical. If we ever attempted such a thing, we'd likely also greatly reduce the number of potential followers in the game. And getting to the point where you have so many variables in play that the reactivity to any one of them becomes almost insignificant is not much better, I'd say. At that point I'd almost prefer to yank out the numbers altogether.

[Sylvius the Mad]

David Gaider wrote...

At that point I'd almost prefer to yank out the numbers altogether.

I would definitely support throwing out the numbers.

People's behaviour isn't nearly as simple as Approval or Friendship/Rivalry makes it seem.

[The Elder King]

@David Gaider: I agree that the system I and others proposed would be problematic and complex to make (which I said in my post). And even if I like the system in theory, I prefer to not lose companions in exchange of this system.

[Fast Jimmy]

But that would be four different sets of dialogue, with four different levels of variability, to add for each companion. You're talking about four to eight (if not more) possible scenarios to react with, depending on if you wanted to have a high/neutral/low rating for each. That is a lot of extra dialogue and reactions to account for!


EDIT:'d by Gaider

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 14 février 2014 - 06:41 .

[The Elder King]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

^

But that would be four different sets of dialogue, with four different levels of variability, to add for each companion. You're talking about four to eight (if not more) possible scenarios to react with, depending on if you wanted to have a high/neutral/low rating for each. That is a lot of extra dialogue and reactions to account for!

I agree. That's why I said that I prefer to have the current system and not the one I proposed, since it'd mean less companions.

[Br3admax]

I'm not really worried about immersion during a pause screen. Especially not when it says things like inventory in all red. Just me, anyway.

[O_OotherSide]

.

Modifié par O_OotherSide, 14 février 2014 - 08:00 .

[nightscrawl]

David Gaider wrote...

If we ever attempted such a thing, we'd likely also greatly reduce the number of potential followers in the game.

Aside from class balance issues, which I know are important, I tend to think this is a good thing, especially since party size is so limited. In both games, as well as other games like NWN with a large pool of followers to draw from, it seems that you just veer into the realm of ignoring people unless you need them for a given situation. Even though I may like an ignored character and am still able to build a relationship with them (through questing, gifts, or dialog), it seems a bit hollow since I haven't actually spent any significant time with them. This is made even worse when the companion makes remarks about accomplishing some feat with our PC that just makes me think, "No, we didn't do anything, you stayed at camp the whole time."

However, I think some of this may be mitigated in DAI with the whole "agent" thing. So I am curious to learn more about this feature, see it in action, and see how it works in relation to interactions with our PC.

[Ianamus]

I was hoping that they would expand on the system for Inquisition.

Telling Fenris that he should let go of his anger and not kill his sister and making Orana your slave couldn't be more different, but both are treated as rivalry and lead to respect and/or romance.

[darkchief10]

To me it has a tendency to lock out certain party member from certain quests if you want to make sure you max out their friendship/rivalry, other wise it's very easy to get locked out of companion quests and conversation because they don't reach a certain threshold, I get what they were trying to do but I don't like it simply because you have to metagame if you want to see all the content for each companion, that or screw everyone lol

Modifié par darkchief10, 14 février 2014 - 08:58 .

[Elhanan]

I enjoyed the system found in SWTOR, which allowed for a wide range of choices. Not only were dialogue choices considered effective for a specific Companion, but also actions and choices could bear towards the remaining team. Light Side/ Dark Side pts were affected. too.

The indv Player could select from choices in a manner that pleased them; not only Good/ Bad/ Snarky options

[CybAnt1]

As far as gifts and their impacts on friendship/approval/whatever-we-call-this-elusive-quality-in-DAI ...

I liked the DA2 approach better. (As I've said, there were some things done right.)

Rather than a large number of gifts with small numerical impact and no other reaction than a 'floaty',

I prefer to have a small number of gifts with large impact and a cutscene reaction ... ("Oh look! It's my Aunt Tilly's Lost Hat! Why thanks, X!") ... and the potential to advance either romance or mere friendship.

[PsychoBlonde]

David Gaider wrote...

I get people liking the idea of having more than one variable to track. In theory, that sounds like it would be more realistic. In practice, it would be a nightmare. You'd end up doing one of two things: 1) having far less reactivity to the individual variable quadrant in which you end up, or 2) having way more lines.

Not necessarily, because what you can do is have individual companion-related activities only have the potential to affect one variable dimension, and then have several variable dimensions end in the same result, or nearly the same with MAYBE one additional line of dialog.  I've talked about this before, where one of the best ways to handle multi-reactivity is to have path convergence along many of the optional threads, so you arrive at the same point but do it via routes that FEEL different.  The companion feels more reactive because while there may be only two end states, the "reaction" feels like it's based off different things.  Instead of "you're important to me, so I'll stand by you" vs. "you're not that important to me, so I'm leaving" you get "You're always looking out for me, so I'll stand by you" vs. "I'm going to prove myself to you, so I'll stand by you!" vs. "I feel I can't trust you, so I'm leaving" vs. "I want no part of your bull****, so I'm leaving".  Four REACTIONS, two STATES.

The trouble with this is that while it nominally requires approximately the same amount of digital resources/budget it puts ENORMOUS strain on the writers.  I've done it myself and it can be head-splitting to write even if it takes no more time than the standard "if A, then B, if C, then D" method because holding all the stuff in your head even long enough to get out a few lines of relevant dialog is amazingly taxing.  Pretty much the only way to do it is to know all the end states in advance and work BACKWARDS from there, identifying the places where you absolutely must add extra dialog/scenes in order to make the paths converge. 

Granted, I write like this anyway, but I can see it making people's eyes cross if that method doesn't work as well for them.  And gawd help the poor editor who has to make all the ends match up properly.

Modifié par PsychoBlonde, 14 février 2014 - 10:13 .

[Maclimes]

David Gaider wrote...
If we ever attempted such a thing, we'd likely also greatly reduce the number of potential followers in the game. 

It may not be a popular opinion, but I'd actually like to see something like that.

Instead of 10 interchangable companions, each with 300 lines of dialogue (or whatever), have only 3 permanent companions, each with 1000 lines of dialogue. Complex branching relationships, with potential romances, subplots, and all sorts of fun. They would have deeper personalities and stories. It would also allow for far more complex and personalized combat skills and talents.

I'd love to see this. And if anyone could pull it off, I think Bioware could.

Modifié par Maclimes, 14 février 2014 - 10:49 .

[CybAnt1]

The problem with the # of companions ... they have to find a sweet spot between people having enough choices to choose from based on differing "squad contribution" characteristics, and being able to make them deep enough, interactive characters.

Interestingly enough, though this game has a 3-class system which I have never found that great, they do offer a lot of different ways to differentiate the companions, as well as with unique companion specializations. It's not like "just take a rogue, just take a warrior, just take a mage" ... rogues can be either melee fighters or archers, warriors can be sword & board/tank or 2-handed, mages can be healers, controllers, or harmers, they're not entirely interchangeable. Sometimes you need 1 kind of warrior, sometimes another (also of course that depends on the spec & class of yourself as PC.)

Like many people, I'm constantly choosing companions for quests on both "squad necessity" and "RP" reasons (i,e. is this the type of quest where they fit in, just based on who they are as a person. If it's a "law and order" matter, I'm taking Aveline ... after all, she IS captain of the guard.) Of course, I must admit, the third factor I often think on is "will they react negatively to what we're about to do?"

Nine seems to be a nice sweet spot number, if in turn you're going to stick to parties of 4. Oh, and have companions sometimes be unavailable from time to time.

Modifié par CybAnt1, 14 février 2014 - 11:10 .

[Wissenschaft]

High Reactivity Stories are best done is smaller scale stories. This is why Telltale's games were so well. Their stories are, by design, very short and that is why they can pack so much variation into the story.

Dragon Age games are far to grand in scale to even attempt that level of Reactivity.

[Tinxa]

Maclimes wrote...

David Gaider wrote...
If we ever attempted such a thing, we'd likely also greatly reduce the number of potential followers in the game. 

It may not be a popular opinion, but I'd actually like to see something like that.

Instead of 10 interchangable companions, each with 300 lines of dialogue (or whatever), have only 3 permanent companions, each with 1000 lines of dialogue. Complex branching relationships, with potential romances, subplots, and all sorts of fun. They would have deeper personalities and stories. It would also allow for far more complex and personalized combat skills and talents.

I'd love to see this. And if anyone could pull it off, I think Bioware could.

I would love this as well.

If they knew who was in the party at all times they could also do complicated 3 way coversations between all the companions, have them all chime in, comment on the areas and react to one another. I really liked the long conversation that started when you arrive in Lothering. You could only have Morrigan and Alistair at that point and the three of you are trying to decide what to do, with Alistair and Morrigan bickering and your PC chiming in.
I don't think they'd do this in a full game like DAI but I'd love to see it in an expansion perhaps. I always thought Awakening had too many companions for it's scope and you got some of them late in the game and never used them.

[Viktoria Landers]

hhh89 wrote...

 The F/R system was hardly perfect, as the approval  system wasn't. The best system, in my opinion, would be a system they present both the approval meter (to measure the level of affection between you and your companions) and the F/R meter (to measure how much you agree/disagree with your companion on their beliefs), but I guess a system like this is really complex to develop. 

That sounds like my proposed Dragon Age: Inquisition reputation system.

Modifié par Viktoria Landers, 15 février 2014 - 03:36 .

[CybAnt1]

A lot of people seem to like a dual-axis system, and it seems like it wouldn't be that hard to implement.... though yes it will increase variables to track and display through scripting, and force the recording of more dialogue.

I would take the Word of Gaider above to be a fairly clear indication that "we're not doing that." Granted, we don't know exactly what else they'll be doing.

There is this indication:

http://www.examiner....tem-for-romance

In past entries of the series, players were required to pass specific approval rating tests before any given character could become viable for courtship. These approval ratings were a simple process which forced to generally agree with their companions in order to get them to like them. In Dragon Age: Inquisition, Bioware is looking to add a little more depth to the approval process. No longer will fans be asked to blindly agree with their NPC party members in order to gain their friendship or become romantically entwined.

The upcoming game will feature dynamic character A.I. that will understand that players might still be very close and dear friends to them regardless of whether they make decisions based off of their companion’s preferences or not. Party members won’t simply shut out players who disagree with them. Different dialogue choices might become available depending on the situation, but gamers shouldn’t ever become locked out of befriending or romancing a character due to disagreeing with them.

[end]

P.S. that possibly sounds to me like friendship/rivalry system 2.0, but we await actual details of implementation (as always).

Modifié par CybAnt1, 15 février 2014 - 04:09 .