90 réponses à ce sujet

[Quill74Pen]

Everyone:

 

Just curious, because if it does, I'm not sure I'd approve of it.

 

Why? Well, I was "scarred" by the system in my initial play through of DA2. I'd invested a lot of playtime with Isabella in my party, and through a mix of decisions I'd made, she sometimes was friendly and, other times, more rivalrous. Long story short, I must have missed some "sweet spot" or another, because Isabella left my party and didn't return when I confronted the Arishok.

 

That, frankly, angered me. I enjoyed Isabella, and it bothered me to think that the developers were somehow forcing me to metagame in order to keep her in my party — either 100 percent friendship or 100 percent rivalry with her, no in-between (and, no, I hadn't made her a love interest in the my first play through). I mean, IRL, how many times are you going to be in a situation with a person where s/he either like you 100 percent or think s/he is your rival 100 percent?

 

I've been leery of the friendship/rival system ever since. So far, I haven't heard anything about the system returning in DAI, but part of me almost hopes that the gifting system from DAO will pop up again in DAI.

 

So, short of that, what "solution" would work best in DAI in order to obtain a workable "approval" system? Well, and this is just off the top of my head, how about simply having it where a character will never leave entirely, but maybe will accompany the PC only on "mission-critical" plot lines? S/he would refuse to join you on secondary and side quests, but would still help with the main story because, frankly, the crisis threatens him/her regardless of his/her opinions of the PC and, thus, s/he will still step up to the plate regardless of how s/he regards the Inquisitor.

 

OK, I'm off to bed. I just needed to get that off my chest before getting some sleep.

[smoke and mirrors]

No rival system this time.

[TurretSyndrome]

No, you will not be able to put leashes on your companions this time.

[Ryzaki]

I do hope that also means I won't be forced into ass kissery dialogue to get anywhere with them. Actions not words should be the heaviest influence of approval.

[TurretSyndrome]

I am afraid asskissery will make a return in DA:I. You will choose between kissing Gaspard's ass and Celene's ass at the end of the game for more troops for your army. The final battle will then be a cutscene with QTEs.

[smoke and mirrors]

I do hope that also means I won't be forced into ass kissery dialogue to get anywhere with them. Actions not words should be the heaviest influence of approval.

 

I got the impression from the demo by Varric`s comments that actions will be " the  heaviest influence of approval " . He didn`t like not saving the village / town  and said so .

[Ryzaki]

I am afraid asskissery will make a return in DA:I. You will choose between kissing Gaspard's ass and Celene's ass at the end of the game for more troops for your army. The final battle will then be a cutscene with QTEs.

 

But Gaspard's ass has moles

 

@smoke: Ah I hope so. Rude good guys are my favs.

[Naesaki]

It got to the point on the PC version for me that i used the console commands to set their friendship or rivalry from the moment i got them, so i could freely enjoy the conversations and situations throughout the game without worrying about F/R point gains and losses.

 

 

Not that I hated the system, it just felt one-dimensional with the way it made you approach certain companions to get them to a specific friendship or rivalry

 

I am looking forward to how Inquisition will do things though

[BabyFratelli]

I'm not sure a lot has been said on this, but I can remember a blog post or something DG did where he talked about the approval system (I'll try to find it but I'm not sure how lucky I'll be).

 

Anyway, I do think actions should speak louder than words in the game (or actions could be forgiven through particular dialogue choices, etc) but I kind of like that my companions scold me if I do something they disagree with. Gives them more personality. It's unrealistic for everyone to just inherently like you even if you do something against their beliefs (this is a problem I had in Mass Effect. Everyone ends up respecting you even if you're a pretty awful human being) So if they could somehow balance the liking/disliking scales into some kind separate of "approval of actions" and "approval of character" scales, that could be interesting. 

 

OP is right about Isabella though, that happened to me in my first play through and gutted me. 

[Vulpe]

Yes and no. If I remember correctly, it will be a mix of the previous two and companions will react to more major events. Depending on what you did in the past, the way they approach you when having discussion or having other minor/major "confrontations" might change from a more friendly one to a more hostile one, depending on what you did.

[Big I]

David Gaider said that rivalry probably wouldn't be coming back because a) most people thought rivalry=bad when they played, and it's too complex to tie it to anything other than one or two issues, giving some odd results (e.g. Friendship with Fenris despite having an elven slave, etc).

 

The devs have said that significant companion moments/conversations will happen regardless of approval level, but the tone of those interactions will differ depending on approval. I don't know if that includes romances. Also, if approval is low enough at certain points then companions will leave/try to kill you.

[Raizo]

Everyone:
 
Just curious, because if it does, I'm not sure I'd approve of it.
 
Why? Well, I was "scarred" by the system in my initial play through of DA2. I'd invested a lot of playtime with Isabella in my party, and through a mix of decisions I'd made, she sometimes was friendly and, other times, more rivalrous. Long story short, I must have missed some "sweet spot" or another, because Isabella left my party and didn't return when I confronted the Arishok.
 
That, frankly, angered me. I enjoyed Isabella, and it bothered me to think that the developers were somehow forcing me to metagame in order to keep her in my party — either 100 percent friendship or 100 percent rivalry with her, no in-between (and, no, I hadn't made her a love interest in the my first play through). I mean, IRL, how many times are you going to be in a situation with a person where s/he either like you 100 percent or think s/he is your rival 100 percent?
 
I've been leery of the friendship/rival system ever since. So far, I haven't heard anything about the system returning in DAI, but part of me almost hopes that the gifting system from DAO will pop up again in DAI.
 
So, short of that, what "solution" would work best in DAI in order to obtain a workable "approval" system? Well, and this is just off the top of my head, how about simply having it where a character will never leave entirely, but maybe will accompany the PC only on "mission-critical" plot lines? S/he would refuse to join you on secondary and side quests, but would still help with the main story because, frankly, the crisis threatens him/her regardless of his/her opinions of the PC and, thus, s/he will still step up to the plate regardless of how s/he regards the Inquisitor.
 
OK, I'm off to bed. I just needed to get that off my chest before getting some sleep.

I have always had a love/hate relationship with the Dragon Age games and the friendship/rivalry system. The gamer in me who loves role playing loves it, I think it is a very realistic mechanic for a role playing game to have and on that level I applaud it. On the other hand I find it is a huge pain in the ass having to micro manage all my companions, having to pander to their tastes and sucking up to them and giving em gifts. There is also something very frightening about knowing that your favourite companions could permanently abandon you just because you picked one wrong dialogue option, missed one quest or did not give them a particular gift.

Despite DA2's many faults, at the end of the day it was the friendship/rivalry system that made me stop laying that game. I was trying to make Isabella my Hawk's LI and after investing a number of hours of gameplay I just buckled under the pressure and gave up, it was too much work for me.

I hope the other posters are right and that the friendship/rivalry system won't be returning in DAI.

[The Elder King]

I am afraid asskissery will make a return in DA:I. You will choose between kissing Gaspard's ass and Celene's ass at the end of the game for more troops for your army. The final battle will then be a cutscene with QTEs.

Why would they to go the QTE route? They never did so far in the IP.
Asskissery was a core feature from the start of the IP though, since we got at least two plots like this in DAO. I hope that the political plots are developed under a different light.

[The Elder King]

I have always had a love/hate relationship with the Dragon Age games and the friendship/rivalry system. The gamer in me who loves role playing loves it, I think it is a very realistic mechanic for a role playing game to have and on that level I applaud it. On the other hand I find it is a huge pain in the ass having to micro manage all my companions, having to pander to their tastes and sucking up to them and giving em gifts. There is also something very frightening about knowing that your favourite companions could permanently abandon you just because you picked one wrong dialogue option, missed one quest or did not give them a particular gift.
Despite DA2's many faults, at the end of the day it was the friendship/rivalry system that made me stop laying that game. I was trying to make Isabella my Hawk's LI and after investing a number of hours of gameplay I just buckled under the pressure and gave up, it was too much work for me.
I hope the other posters are right and that the friendship/rivalry system won't be returning in DAI.

Gaider confirmed months ago that the F/R system won't return. It'll be similar, though not identical, to DAO's system (which is fine by me, since the DAO system wasn't perfect at all). Furthermore he stated more recently that most companions will be optionally recruitable/dismissable.

[TurretSyndrome]

What's stupid about the F/R system is that if you just roleplay a character instead of catering to your companions needs, and you end up somewhere close to neutral, the game actually punishes you. So someone who agrees with me on few things and disagrees with me on other things is more likely to turn on me than someone who hates my guts and absolutely despises me(100% rival). Mind blown.

[phantomrachie]

I preferred the F/R system in DA:2 to the Approval system in DA:O but it is by no means ideal.

 

I'd like to have an approval system that is based more on your actions than what you say to someone and I'd also like to be able to explain to why I made a decision to my companions.

 

This would mean that they are reacting to how you are playing rather then what you say to them to make them your friend BUT that you'd be able to reduce any potential conflict by explaining why you did something.  So if you didn't save that village to be a dick, okay fair enough Varric is very unhappy but if you didn't save it because of the strategic importance of the Keep, he still wouldn't be happy but he might understand. 

[CybAnt1]

Well, the two things I did not get about rivalry, were

 

a) the rivalmances -- strike me as "hatefucking"

and

b.) that rivalry also gave your companions and you ability bonuses. (Now, I get why some people think neither friendship nor rivalry scores should lead to gameplay effects. I'm just engaging a different argument.) It seems strange that as they grow in hatred towards you, their abilities increase. Like "Grrrrr. Hawke sucks. I hate the things he does. I'm so mad, I'm gonna hit people harder". 

 

It just seemed like an odd system. Now, I suppose I almost get it in principle. Your rivals totally disagree with your worldview and actions, but still maintain grudging respect for you. It's why some people argue for a "two axis" system of friendship/rivalry and loyalty/disloyalty. But, they're not gonna do that. 

[Raizo]

Gaider confirmed months ago that the F/R system won't return. It'll be similar, though not identical, to DAO's system (which is fine by me, since the DAO system wasn't perfect at all). Furthermore he stated more recently that most companions will be optionally recruitable/dismissable.

Glad to hear that, thanks.

[In Exile]

What's stupid about the F/R system is that if you just roleplay a character instead of catering to your companions needs, and you end up somewhere close to neutral, the game actually punishes you. So someone who agrees with me on few things and disagrees with me on other things is more likely to turn on me than someone who hates my guts and absolutely despises me(100% rival). Mind blown.

 

I really have to disagree with that. I never had a problem, in my first blind run through DA:O, getting 100% Friendship with every single character. 

 

Although re: the bolded, that was pretty much the problem Bioware had with Rivalry, since it was never supposed to be about hatred - but it seems like character writers can't agree on how to portray "disagree on some issue without personal animosity". Isabella's rivalry path is the best example of that, because you're never really in conflict as antagonists, Hawke just constantly harps on her to be less selfish. 

[CybAnt1]

But if you're telling someone to be less selfish, it's not like your problem with them is intellectual - we disagree about the theory of relativity, for example - your problem IS personal. I mean, IE, that doesn't make sense to me. 

 

If Hawke is telling Isabela to be less selfish, it doesn't just mean they disagree about an "issue". ("Should we have more or less taverns in Kirkwall? Discuss!") It means Hawke is telling her "I don't like your personality and you should change it". That is dislike, not just disagreement. 

 

I guess conceptually I still am not getting how rivalry could not contain any aspect of animosity or dislike (even if "hatred" is too strong a word.) 

 

I suppose like in things like athletic competition, you can have "friendly rivals". They're each determined to beat each other, they constantly trash talk each other, but they have grudging respect.  

 

Or when it comes to the issue of leadership. "I don't like the decisions you're making for our party!" But if that's how rivalry works, the rival should be challenging you for leadership. (Of course, there would no real way to implement the challenge being successful, so they would basically have to leave or duel you to the death.) 

 

But that didn't seem to be how the Rivalry system in DA2 worked, even if those two examples were the kinds of things they had in mind. Perhaps the writing problem resulted from a muddled concept. 

[Iakus]

Gaider confirmed months ago that the F/R system won't return. It'll be similar, though not identical, to DAO's system (which is fine by me, since the DAO system wasn't perfect at all). Furthermore he stated more recently that most companions will be optionally recruitable/dismissable.

 

In addition, companion conversations will not be gated by approval, but by events.  So they may react differently to you based on major choices you have made.  So that could be considered "rivalry" in a sense.  This also means you don't necessarily have to be nice to them in order to hear all their dialogue 

[CybAnt1]

Well, I support the decision to make actions and choices more impactful than dialogue and things you say.

 

I am curious whether they will scrap, or rework, the gift system. BTW, I didn't terribly dislike DA2's gift system. Still, there's this lingering issue of how odd it is gifts can somehow cancel out actions, or even just saying lots of mean nasty stuff to them. 

[TurretSyndrome]

I really have to disagree with that. I never had a problem, in my first blind run through DA:O, getting 100% Friendship with every single character. 

 

Although re: the bolded, that was pretty much the problem Bioware had with Rivalry, since it was never supposed to be about hatred - but it seems like character writers can't agree on how to portray "disagree on some issue without personal animosity". Isabella's rivalry path is the best example of that, because you're never really in conflict as antagonists, Hawke just constantly harps on her to be less selfish. 

 

 

I don't know how anyone can pull off the "I just don't disagree with you, but not hate you" crap and still follow you around and put their lives on the line for you. When I think about this, I refer to relationships with my friends in real life. If people heavily disagreed with me on things such that I will give them a 100% rivalry, I wouldn't call them my "friends", only that they are people I know. They will also more than likely be people who I would avoid talking to, as by the rivalry logic, they disagree with almost everything I say.

 

What I do know is that people whose thoughts align with mine, at least on a few matters(neutral alignment), are more likely to help me out in a pinch or stay by my side, than people who feel very strongly that I'm wrong about almost everything. That is not the case in DA 2, as being on neutral grounds with your companions actually punishes you more than anything else.

 

Sorry, but that system is flawed. It is too simplified and streamlined, and is only there as romance assist for fans regardless of what  alignment their companions are. It's also there to act as an invisible leash on your companions, so regardless of what you do, they can't run away from you, they can only hate you.

 

You are free to disagree with me as much you like.

[TurretSyndrome]

Well, I support the decision to make actions and choices more impactful than dialogue and things you say.

 

I am curious whether they will scrap, or rework, the gift system. BTW, I didn't terribly dislike DA2's gift system. Still, there's this lingering issue of how odd it is gifts can somehow cancel out actions, or even just saying lots of mean nasty stuff to them. 

 That is the problem that accompanies bars and meters in games, if you ask me.

[Innsmouth Dweller]

I liked friendship/rivalery system. I mean, I can strongly disagree with someone and still respect that person (maybe even more so) but only if he/she can make a valid point. I didn't like DA2 characters, because their "points" were usually very far from being valid. If I don't care much for them or dislike them, they don't have the chance to gain any friendship/rivalery points.