65 réponses à ce sujet

[vania z]

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.

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.

After replaying DA:O for several times, I sometimes wish it was shorter and had more variety to it. Especially I wish the deep roads and the fade were shorter. 

[teh DRUMPf!!]

I've made this suggestion elsewhere but I'll make it again.

I think it should start with the approval/disapproval system of DA:O, but include a "loyalty" check, which changes it to DA2's system for a loyal companion. You can secure the loyalty of a companion by doing something meaningful for them -- like a side-quest that they ask of you -- and after that point, approval = friendship and disapproval = rivalry -- ala DA2.

[vania z]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

I've made this suggestion elsewhere but I'll make it again.

I think it should start with the approval/disapproval system of DA:O, but include a "loyalty" check, which changes it to DA2's system for a loyal companion. You can secure the loyalty of a companion by doing something meaningful for them -- like a side-quest that they ask of you -- and after that point, approval = friendship and disapproval = rivalry -- ala DA2.

I proposed somewhere here something similiar: one bar represents "respect" which losely equals to loyalty, and another bar gold old approval from da2.

[Sylvius the Mad]

vania z wrote...

After replaying DA:O for several times, I sometimes wish it was shorter and had more variety to it. Especially I wish the deep roads and the fade were shorter.

I wish the Deep Roads were longer.  I've said so many times.  They didn't need any more content, but the periods of just walking between landmarks should have been longer - to give a better sense of scale.

Overall, though, DAO was just about the perfect length.  It was also the first game BioWare had made in 10 years where I could say that.  KotOR and JE and ME were all too short.  Even the NWN OC could have done with some more exploration.

[Fast Jimmy]

scyphozoa wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

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. 

Hi David, this is actually something I have been asking for. I don't think it should be a new rule for all Bioware games, but I would love to see at least a single Bioware game that tries this exchange. Fewer companions for more depth/word count of the companions that do exist. This also applies to romances, I would love to see two romance options (1m/1f, both available to everyone) but with more words and zots. I personally find that romance content in Bioware games is too rushed, too abbreviated, too abrupt. The pacing feels off to me, and it makes it difficult to believe people could develop a romantic relationship with such few conversations or exchanges. 

So while you sound kind of negative about this concept, I hope it is something Bioware will at least try once. Fewer companions in exchange for more companion depth. I love companions, but I want to see Bioware really push even further into believable human behavior, dialog and interaction, and I think that will come from more depth, words and zots. 

Less companions means less romance options.

Sorry, that's an instant Bioware no-go. 

[vania z]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I wish the Deep Roads were longer.  I've said so many times.  They didn't need any more content, but the periods of just walking between landmarks should have been longer - to give a better sense of scale.

Overall, though, DAO was just about the perfect length. 

I can easily imagine right scale without huge empty spaces. You have to do it anyway or else you are stuck with cities where live only ~100 npcs. 

Overall length of DAO is fine, I agree, but there should be more difference between different playthoughs. 

[Shadow of Light Dragon]

More than one plane of 'relationship' would be far too much work, unfortunately, especially in a party-based game.

Take this example:

Like----Neutral---Loathe (How the NPC appreciates the PC's manner towards themself)
+
Approve---Undecided---Disapprove (How the NPC appreciates the PC's manner towards others)

Possible Character Relationship states

Neutral/Undecided
Like/Undecided
Loathe/Undecided
Approve/Neutral
Disapprove/Neutral
Like/Approve
Like/Disapprove
Loathe/Approve
Loathe/Disapprove

That's at least 9 reactions (if I counted them right...) for every party member's dialogue in every single spot where it's meant to react to their opinion of the PC, which would have to be written, voiced, and possibly have custom responses prepared for the PC. And that's not even counting if the NPC has an active romance, or if it's an 'intermediary' relationship (like Warm + Mildly Disapprove).

It'd be awesome, but it'd be way too much work for the number of companions Dragon Age has. I'd say it'd be too much work even if the game wasn't voiced. There's just too many variables.

Modifié par Shadow of Light Dragon, 16 février 2014 - 08:17 .

[Viktoria Landers]

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.

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.

Apparently the budget is large enough to hire Felicia Day and a whole cast team for the Redemption, a web-series with practically no return value, but adding a bit more depth on the game itself? Nooo...


That tactic of BioWare's has two sides. From one side they might gain more fans but on the other hand it disappoints the older fans. This can also be noticed when we compared the DAO fans with DA2 fans; both groups of fans having different conceps and ideas of what an RPG should be like. This diversification of the playerbase however means that DA:I needs to be equally leaning towards both in DAO and DA2 because otherwise the fans of the other group will be disappointed.

Modifié par Viktoria Landers, 16 février 2014 - 09:26 .

[Fast Jimmy]

Viktoria Landers wrote...

Apparently the budget is large enough to hire Felicia Day and a whole cast team for the Redemption, a web-series with practically no return value, but adding a bit more depth on the game itself? Nooo...

I'm pretty sure Felicia Day created the web series of her own volition (and money). She had permission to do so, but I don't believe there was any funding by Bioware to do anything with Day until the Mark of the Assassin DLC (although I could be wrong about that).

[Bleachrude]

You are correct Fast Jimmy.

Felicia is a fan and she did all of that with her own time and friends. She also got the standard rate for voice actors so it wasn't exactly "breaking the bank" having her.

[Wulfram]

One option would be to have different systems for different characters. Inelegant and probably over-complicated, but perhaps better at reflecting different people.

For example, a strongly ideological character like Anders might be F/R based, someone like Isabela mostly just cares about whether Hawke is fun to hang out with, so she'd be approval based, and Merrill might basically just care about whether you'll help her with the mirror and thus not have much of a numerical track at all.

(these are just examples, don't want to cause a derail about DA2 characters)

[Bond]

I dont see big difference in the 2. In DAO it was warm, friendly, lover etc, in 2 it is a bar with friend/rival in the end. Lets hope for something more complicated and interesting.

@scyphozoa - two romances ? Impossible, that would be one for male and one for female, so lets just make it a story driven romance like witcher and dont bother. The point is to have 4-5 romances to choose from, while i agree that quality over quantity.

Modifié par LoyalFan, 16 février 2014 - 06:14 .

[Pallando]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

The Friendship/Rivalry system is broken in the same way that the Dominant Tone/AGG/Sarc/Dip mechanic was broken. 

It assumed you would go full tilt in one direction or another. And it provided a decent enough experience if you stayed on that one track. But if you tried to mix it up, and play a character that was a little more three-dimensional (someone who realizes Mages are treated badly, but realizes the Circle is still a useful institution to keeping the world safe, while also seeing the merits of Blood Magic I a. Controlled environment), the system failed miserably. 

This. 

The problem with "1 meter to measure it all" is that the details of your choices are lost to your companions. 

What I would have liked is a system that measures your morality using your companions as a referential.
But the opposite could be done. Instead of a "per companion" approval, the game only measures what you think of different subjects and then computes a "global approval" (as in "a norm") for each of your followers. 

There would not be "right" or "wrong", only a measurement of your opinion on the topics that matter for your companions, based on your choices. 


Like "mages", "slavery", "blood magic", "helping the weak", ...
Fenris would have been interested in your level of approval on mages and slavery, while Anders would have been curious about your opinion on topics such as mages, blood magic or altruism. 

That way, the game could use norms to determine if a companion is far from your ideals, but would still be able to leave out dialogues mentionning things not true. 

Moreover, you could also apply some personnal bonus/malus to this "morality distance".
Like helping a companion through a personal quest would grant you a "+20" bonus, whatever your differences.

Modifié par Pallando, 20 février 2014 - 08:00 .