55 réponses à ce sujet

[Zazzerka]

@9TailsFox

 

You stole my old avatar. Give it back.

[Wulfram]

Maybe they could replace it with a bit of descriptive text.  I mean, rather than Fee (dis)approves +1, you could have

 

Foo seems annoyed

Foo looks happy

Foo mutters swear words under their breath

Foo looks amused

Foo seems aroused

 

And probably only have it for the occasions when they're present but not really speaking - it should be redundant when you're talking to them face to face.

[Lebanese Dude]

Part of me resists this idea, because I like having everyone stay with me if i can.  But another part of me says "this is a great idea because I could stop worrying about how much X character likes me and just get on with the game already."
 
Bioware already said they intend to tweak the system again, so that you can disagree with party members and not necessarily be rivals.  They are still friends, but they disagree with you.  This could be interesting if you disagree with your friends too many times.  Maybe they might, no matter how much they love you as a friend, turn on you at a critical moment in the plot because of their fundamental disagreements with you.  It could be like Loghain and Cailin all over again.  Or Arl Howe and Teyrn Cousland.

Or Arl Howe and Teyrn Cousland.

Howe didnt disagree with Bryce, he killed everyone in Castle Cousland because he was a genuine douchebag.

[mars_central]

I can see why people would want to lose the meter, but I personally like having it.

[KaiserShep]

I think that if the meter were to disappear, there would have to be something pretty substantial to let players know where the character stands with the PC. Like, in DA2, if the friendship/rivary bar was hidden, you wouldn't know whether or not Isabela would leave the group for good and never return, and you'd not know how the hell to prevent that next time. She'd have to say or do something along the way so that you get some kind of signal where she's headed. Since I'm pretty attentive in games, I'd probably appreciate a lot of subtlety in the way the reputation system works if it's conveyed through dialogue and actions on the part of the character rather than a meter, but if seems like something that's easy to turn into a very frustrating mess.

[Mockingword]

I'm going to metagame anyway, so whatever.

[phantomrachie]

I think they did a good job in Origins.  Trust has to be earned and it takes time.  For instance, go to early to look for the Sacred Ashes and Sten is going to call you out.  The trust wasn't built yet were he saw how you've handled things so far and how dire the situation was becoming.  In DAII, it seemed, that there were little to no consequences for your decisions in your party's relationships.  So for me, whether you have a friendship/rivirly bar or not doesn't matter, just give me the consequences for my decisions.

 

Trust wasn't earned in Origins it was bought. At least with the friendship/rivalry system your status with them can influence their personality and help develop their character arc.

 

In Origins change could only come if your companions liked you enough, that combined with the stat boost that they got when they liked you enough ment that I always tried to max out their friendship. Whereas in DA:2 I could make decisions my companions didn't necessarily agree with and get rivalry points, if I did this consistently their personality developed differently to their friendship path and it unlocked different skills.

[Vincent-Vega]

IMO, the best (and easiest) way would be to leave the whole friendship/rivalry system out. It's just incredibly annoying that you have say something you actually don't want to say, just because you know it'll affect some visible or invisible system.

To put this straight, I'm not saying your followers should'n react to your actions, in fact, I totally support the idea of someone opposing you, but this should be because of something you did, not because you weren't nice enough.
 

[KaiserShep]

To put this straight, I'm not saying your followers should'n react to your actions, in fact, I totally support the idea of someone opposing you, but this should be because of something you did, not because you weren't nice enough.
 

 

But then what are you not being nice about to begin with? If I blackmail Thrask, or blackmail the Magistrate, these should not be things that I can do in a consequence-free vacuum while standing right next to people who may otherwise be offended by such a thing, particularly the lawful good Aveline. Taking approval out of dialogue takes a major component out of the companion interaction. The PC should not be able to say whatever he/she wants without having some kind of impact on the other characters. Just basing it on actions alone would not really be enough, because sometimes what you say matters quite a lot too.

 

Besides, DA is a much more companion-focused setup that devotes a lot more time into dialogue. Removing an approval system altogether for dialogue would gut an important part of the game.

[Vincent-Vega]

But then what are you not being nice about to begin with? If I blackmail Thrask, or blackmail the Magistrate, these should not be things that I can do in a consequence-free vacuum while standing right next to people who may otherwise be offended by such a thing, particularly the lawful good Aveline. Taking approval out of dialogue takes a major component out of the companion interaction. The PC should not be able to say whatever he/she wants without having some kind of impact on the other characters. Just basing it on actions alone would not really be enough, because sometimes what you say matters quite a lot too.

 

Besides, DA is a much more companion-focused setup that devotes a lot more time into dialogue. Removing an approval system altogether for dialogue would gut an important part of the game.

 

I totally see your point and I don't disagree, however:
I don't think, not having an approval system at all would be more implausible than having a rivalry sytem like in DA:2. Like you said, Aveline opposes evil actions, but stays with you ANYWAY. My solution is far from perfect, but it's much easier and, that's the importnat part, you wouldn't have to worry about displeasing anybody just by disagreeing with him.

But, I'm not generally against an approval system, if it's done right it actually can add a lot of depth to a game and it's characters. But so far, the cons outweigh the pros imo. BG2 for example didn't have an approval system, neither did KOTOR.

[KaiserShep]

OK maybe I've been confused in this. I consider all of these systems some kind of "approval" insofar that DA2's rivalry is essentially disapproval with benefits.

[Vincent-Vega]

Exactly, and this disapproval with benefits is totally implausible. Like I said, I'm well aware that not having an approval system would be weird, especially since both Dragon Age games had one, but I don't think having a poorly made approval sytem is better than having none at all.

[JimboGee]

No thanks, dont want my party members exploding at me for no reason. AKA Allistair after that quest with the demon.

[Eveangaline]

Oh lord. I'd be so lost if this was implimented.

[Gileadan]

I really like the idea. If you hide the meter, you can have companions who wear their hearts on their sleeve, so to say, and tell you often what they think about you and your course of actions - maybe with words, maybe just with the camera panning over them as they nod or frown. And you could have mysterious characters, who don't tell you jack about themselves, who watch your every move with a stoic or enigmatic expression. A meter (unless it lies to you) makes such mysterious companions impossible.

[Althix]

Honestly i think they should get rid of that system entirely.

 

For example DAO. Stats bonuses for a characters are derectly linked to approval. Which means you should be nice with everyone, even with Alistair. These bonuses are too great to neglect them.

In DA2 Bioware did better in one way and not so good in another. Because you can actually act as you see right with the character, even if this particular character do not like it. But rival is just opposite stat line of a friend, well with red backround.

 

Instead it would be better just to have a some kind of check points during gameplay when choices you make will have some consequences further ahead. Like character is a character, but when you cross some line he will abandon you or betray you because he can't endure you anymore.

 

But without threats that you can see mile away. For example... that emo elf... what is his name?.. ah Fenris. Most ridiculous example of that system. Like if you are friend with him - he will side with you even if you fight with mages, if he is your rival he will still side with you if you fight with mages. Yeah step on a throat of your own principles, because Hawke troll much. Reason enough right?

 

So in general it would be nice if characters would have some backbone, instead of being just a mindless sheeps.

 

Good example of how character can say 'no' is Alistair. More of that please.

[AlanC9]

IMO, the best (and easiest) way would be to leave the whole friendship/rivalry system out. It's just incredibly annoying that you have say something you actually don't want to say, just because you know it'll affect some visible or invisible system.

How about just... not doing that? You could just take the relationship hit.

I agree that gameplay bonuses make this a bit of a problem, though.

[Realmzmaster]

IMO, the best (and easiest) way would be to leave the whole friendship/rivalry system out. It's just incredibly annoying that you have say something you actually don't want to say, just because you know it'll affect some visible or invisible system.

To put this straight, I'm not saying your followers should'n react to your actions, in fact, I totally support the idea of someone opposing you, but this should be because of something you did, not because you weren't nice enough.
 

 

 IRL we all say or do things that we know will positively affect a relationship we have with family, friends and other groups even if we do not wish to do or say them. Why should this instance be any different? Both actions and words carry weigh. What a person says can be just as important as what a person does.

[Jorji Costava]

I'm actually kinda on the fence about this one. On the one hand, it's not different in principle from being able to see the amount of damage you're doing to bad guys (think of Borderlands obnoxiously displaying all those numbers every time you hit something). That's information the player should have access to, even if the PC doesn't. Also, there are times when approval bonuses don't seem to sync up with what the NPC's are saying; for instance, an NPC will respond to you with a very kind remark, but no approval changes occur, but seemingly indifferent reactions will incur an approval bonus or penalty. I like to know when this is happening so I can ask, "Is this an error in the coding, or is the game trying to suggest to me something about the character's disposition? Maybe they're just BSing when they say nice things to me."

 

On the other hand, it has a tendency to encourage thinking of companion dialogue in terms of winning and losing, which you might not want to do depending on how you roleplay. If you help a stranger and Morrigan disapproves, is that a kind of loss? I don't necessarily think so. Correlating stat bonuses with approval and disapproval only compounds that worry.

 

So in the end, I dunno. Personally, I just hope we don't see a gift system like in DAO. If there are going to be gifts, it's better that they be relatively rare legitimate quest items which it takes effort for the PC to acquire. That lessens the sense that we're just bribing the companions for their approval, and helps explain why the NPC would respond so positively to the gift. My two cents, anyways.

[TurretSyndrome]

Instead of hiding a system which is flawed(DA 2's F/R system), they should concentrate on creating a proper one. I'd rather they correct their mistakes than hide them to stop people from complaining, it's stupid and counterproductive.

[9TailsFox]

My opinion on this you just try to fix non-existent problem well at least for me. You reload game because you companion didn't like what you say. It's like not playing mage because Fenris don't like you. And I know a lot of people disagree.

[Mockingword]

If they're gonna hide it, then I'd rather they did away with it altogether, and have the characters react accordingly to specific plot triggers, rather than based on a sliding scale that I can't see.

 

But I'm gonna metagame the **** out of it, anyway.

[AlanC9]

Instead of hiding a system which is flawed(DA 2's F/R system), they should concentrate on creating a proper one. I'd rather they correct their mistakes than hide them to stop people from complaining, it's stupid and counterproductive.

OK. What would a proper system look like?

[Realmzmaster]

No matter what system is used it will not in be able to measure realistically real complex relationships. The previous DA games have made attempts at modeling a simplistic way to measure it. Both systems had flaws. The approval/disapproval system was easy to game by giving gifts to improve approval or avoiding certain choices that caused disapproval. The Friendship/Rivalry system had gamers complaining because it had companions respecting and following the protagonist even if the companion vehemently disagree with the protagonist.

 

Some have suggested a two state system of disapproval/approval and like/dislike. That way you can like the protagonist, but disapprove of his/her actions. What the companion's reaction can be would be based on the two states. Which still may not be the best solution.

 

I will wait and see how Bioware will solve the situation in DAI. There will be three systems to compare.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I've gotten pretty good at ignoring the meter (something I started doing with lightside/darkside points in KotOR). But since I'm apparently not able to ignore things like the quest categories in the journal, I'm sympathetic to the suggestion that we should be permitted to hide such a meter.