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.
If we're talking about forum discussions, for example, absolutely. And I agree with your theoretical point. 
It's just that what you're describing did not seem to match how the DA2 system actually worked, even if it was supposed to be like what you're describing.
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.
My only problem was in the end you needed 100% friendship/rivalry or risked being forced to kill your allies
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.
Personally, I liked how DA2 handled gifts overall, especially since they did not really guarantee a boost in friendship, but also had to be accompanied by the appropriate dialogue. Aveline is the perfect case, since she initially took offense to being given a new shield and could gain rivalry if you're short with her (on that subject, I was surprised to discover that if you sell Wesley's shield, she will actually comment on you doing so. I never sell it, but it's nice to know that little detail is there.)
My only problem was in the end you needed 100% friendship/rivalry or risked being forced to kill your allies
I thought of this as a good thing. Without risk, there's no reward. 
Well it certainly seems like we aren't getting the DA2 system I certain hope we don't get the system of DA:O, that to me wasn't fun. You didn't want it to be at the bottom cause they'll leave and attack you (well that did seem or realistic) I didn't want it to be a punishment for disagreeing with them. At least in DA2, it was a complete setback.
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.
Are those people you don't like risking their lives to help you with your issues? Cause that's what Hawke does for rivalry companions. You can't get their QB without doing their personal quests.
Rivalry Hawke helps Isabela with Castillion (she never expected to get the ship in the first place and does see that killing Cast was more prudent than getting his ship. She can get another ship). Fenris? Danarius dies whether friendship or rivalry, same with Hadriana. Merrill? The mirror issue is the one time I can see her not being helped by him but even then she couldn't have killed the Varatella alone and even she admits that she doesn't particularly like Hawke but she trusts him to be able to stop her if the worst was to occur when she goes to see the demon. Anders? Hawke *has* to help him otherwise his rivalry meter means jack squat.
Now the rivalry meter could've used major tweaking (like being friends with Anders not assuming I thought his merger with Justice was a good thing or should be encouraged, and Rival Isabela assuming that meant my character was stuck up or a bore (He just couldn't stand her).) But to say they could only hate the PC is meh. They stay with Hawke as long as they can use him/her and they have the same goals if they dislike him/her.
I like the tone that rivalry vs friendship gave to the dialogue in DA2 and character development. Anders being able to be convinced his chantry plan is wrong if rivaled is a good example. Even if Justice takes him over and makes him forget the conversation anyway, it was still a difference in character that resulted from how you interacted with him. There was also a nuance with Fenris. If you freinded him, you had an easier time of getting him to give up his anger or something? I don't exactly recall the details off the top of my head.
Point is, I thought the friendship/rivalry system was rather elegant and allowed me to really feel like my Hawke interacting with the characters actually took them somewhere development-wise.
Maybe we'll get a rep system like in ME3 where approval level is on a seperate scale than friend/rivalry feelings. If you do or don't do something you gain or lose approval, and *how* you did or didn't do it determines rivalry or friendship.
It's just that what you're describing did not seem to match how the DA2 system actually worked
Actually you're right about this. I've never used Fenris nor Anders. Hmm... that didn't come out right. Anyway, I still think the idea of rivalery is pretty good, I just wish it was more worked on. (only NPC I was able to get 100% rivalery was Merill and that was exactly the kind of relationship I mentioned - although I don't agree with her, she has my respect... and she's awesome)
My only problem was in the end you needed 100% friendship/rivalry or risked being forced to kill your allies
Well, if you don't have really strong relationship with a NPC, he/she will stay true to his/her beliefs, regardless of the Champion's standing.
Sorry, AE, people asked for a two-scale system, with approval and friendship on two different axes, and Lord Gaider said, "we're not doing that."
It is too bad they can't have two meters, one for friendship and one for Rivalry, which are independent of one another. That way instead of bars working agaisnt one another, choices simpley gain you either friendship or rivarly points, and whichever you have more of is how a person treats you. The fact that work or feelings could be erased through different choices is what bothered me. Isabela leaving the party is a perfect example, since she clearly isn't apathetic towards you at the end of act 2, even if she is squarely in the middle, she has just seen multiple sides to your personality/nuances.
I was typing as the above post was added 
Modifié par oceanicsurvivor, 20 mars 2014 - 07:26 .
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).
You didn't actually require 100 per cent Rivalry or Friendship. You just needed 50 per cent, plus the completion of her Act 2 personal quest.
You didn't actually require 100 per cent Rivalry or Friendship. You just needed 50 per cent, plus the completion of her Act 2 personal quest.
Well that can't be true, cus I had both of those things and lost her. I definitely had higher than 50% friendship with her. In fact, the last interaction i had with her (allowing her to keep the qunari book) pushed her to 100% and activated her friend buff for my character for the rest of the game, even though she never returned to my party.
Well that can't be true, cus I had both of those things and lost her. I definitely had higher than 50% friendship with her. In fact, the last interaction i had with her (allowing her to keep the qunari book) pushed her to 100% and activated her friend buff for my character for the rest of the game, even though she never returned to my party.
If your last interaction with her activated her Friendship buff, then you never finished her Act 2 Questioning Beliefs quest, which is one of the pre-requisites for keeping her.
If your last interaction with her activated her Friendship buff, then you never finished her Act 2 Questioning Beliefs quest, which is one of the pre-requisites for keeping her.
Yes, I did. I completed the friendship version of that conversation.
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
OK, a bit off topic, but how the hell does one quote a quote within a quote in this new system? The multi quote option lets you do just that, but from multiple posts, rather than a previous post that already contains quoted material.
On topic, the news you provide, Iakus, is good, and raises my hopes that a better approval system will arise from the ashes of those in DAO and DA2.
I wouldn't be surprised if they disabled it. Those quote pyramids were ****** annoying.
I wouldn't be surprised if they disabled it. Those quote pyramids were ****** annoying.
To a point, yes, but the post I quoted contained material from a previous post that had useful, related information. Anyway, it's no deal breaker, just an annoyance.
On topic, I recently played DA2 (again), and, having lost familiarity with which quests to do first in order to get all of your companions ASAP, didn't acquire Isabella until toward the end of the Act I. *sigh* I imagine this will complicate efforts to keep her in the party, regardless of metagaming, since I've already activated many friendship/rivalry areas in Act I that she would have responded to.
Yeah, thank God that DAI will *not* have a carbon copy of DA2's approval system.
Oh yeah Isabela was a pain in the ass and if you wanted to rival her you had to micromanage so much it just wasn't worth it. (and if you wanted to rivalmance her you had to take a +20 friendship hit!)
I'm not that fond of DAO's kiss my ass or I never talk to you" bit either. Hopefully DAI will be a nice halfway.
I mean I can understand pc's not telling me certain crap if they don't like my PC but not talking at all...ehhh.
Yes, I did. I completed the friendship version of that conversation.
Nothing you say makes any sense.
In any case, I got her to 50 per cent Rivalry, completed her QB2 Quest and got her to return at the end of Act 2. So the system worked for me.
Oh yeah Isabela was a pain in the ass and if you wanted to rival her you had to micromanage so much it just wasn't worth it. (and if you wanted to rivalmance her you had to take a +20 friendship hit!)
I'm not that fond of DAO's kiss my ass or I never talk to you" bit either. Hopefully DAI will be a nice halfway.
I mean I can understand pc's not telling me certain crap if they don't like my PC but not talking at all...ehhh.
I'd like it if there wasn't the incentive to min/max relationships or the paragon/renegade, light/dark, good/evil meters like Bioware always does. Seems to always pay off to be REALLY something instead of a bit more neutral.
As I said earlier I went into DA2 with the intent on making Isabella my LI. I was warned before hand that she is very finicky and that it was very difficult to get 100% friendship with her so as such every time I booted up DA2 I also had to consult a wiki as well as a walkthrough. Every time I got a rivalry bonus instead a friendship one I was forced to reload an earlier save and begin again because I was so paranoid about offending her and losing her. Eventually I just cracked under the pressure and gave up on DA2 all together. That is no way to play a game, having to constantly consult a guide, being to paranoid to move the story forward.
Maybe there's something wrong with your entire approach to the game, then? If working from a walkthrough is ruining your experience, why do it?
I'd like it if there wasn't the incentive to min/max relationships or the paragon/renegade, light/dark, good/evil meters like Bioware always does. Seems to always pay off to be REALLY something instead of a bit more neutral.
Yeah you always have to an extremist. 
Playing like someone with sense tends to backfire.
As I said earlier I went into DA2 with the intent on making Isabella my LI. I was warned before hand that she is very finicky and that it was very difficult to get 100% friendship with her so as such every time I booted up DA2 I also had to consult a wiki as well as a walkthrough. Every time I got a rivalry bonus instead a friendship one I was forced to reload an earlier save and begin again because I was so paranoid about offending her and losing her. Eventually I just cracked under the pressure and gave up on DA2 all together. That is no way to play a game, having to constantly consult a guide, being to paranoid to move the story forward.
I've heard people say this about Isabela before but I've never had an issue with getting her friendship and keeping her after Act 2. Even the first time I played I didn't have any issues.
I think people must have freaked you out - she is easy to keep happy, especially if you are sarcastic Hawke.
Until I came to the BioWare boards and began to talk about companion interaction, I didn't realize that reading people and anticipating their reaction was a skill. I figured out what Isabela was like before I even booted up the game: fun loving, likes making money, likes freedom, doesn't like responsibility or being tied down.
My first game, I easily got a ton of friendship points. My second game, I easily got a ton of rivalry points.
If anything, I found Isabela a touch too easy. TOR is better with this as the companions tend to have rather complex rules for what they do and don't like. The first JC companion you get is part of a society of hunters, and has elaborate standards for when to help people, when to not help them, and when to offer mercy. The first four commando companions are all pro-Republic and military types, but have different ideas on when to follow regulations, when to bend/brake the rules, how much respect to show to an enemy, and who deserves to live and die.
If anything, I'd like Dragon Age: Inquisition companions to show that level of complexity when it comes to affection.
Until I came to the BioWare boards and began to talk about companion interaction, I didn't realize that reading people and anticipating their reaction was a skill. I figured out what Isabela was like before I even booted up the game: fun loving, likes making money, likes freedom, doesn't like responsibility or being tied down.
My first game, I easily got a ton of friendship points. My second game, I easily got a ton of rivalry points.
If anything, I found Isabela a touch too easy. TOR is better with this as the companions tend to have rather complex rules for what they do and don't like. The first JC companion you get is part of a society of hunters, and has elaborate standards for when to help people, when to not help them, and when to offer mercy. The first four commando companions are all pro-Republic and military types, but have different ideas on when to follow regulations, when to bend/brake the rules, how much respect to show to an enemy, and who deserves to live and die.
If anything, I'd like Dragon Age: Inquisition companions to show that level of complexity when it comes to affection.
While I agree with this to a point, I did run into trouble when I had Aveline and Isabella in the same team. Balancing them out was kind of a pain in the ass.
Retour en haut