90 réponses à ce sujet

[Travie]

Oh yeah? Sounds pretty dumb. I'm dropping you from my party. 

 

 

Quill74Pen Rivalry +10

 

Morrigan Friendship +3

[Rotward]

Maker, I hope not. I hate the idea that rivalry and friendship are opposed. That's far from accurate in the real world. At least approval worked - the Warden was the party's 'boss,' and people frequently disapprove of their boss. 

[Eveangaline]

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'm hoping some are like Sten. More respect when you don't necessarily kiss their ass.

[In Exile]

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.  

 

 

 

I think this just turns on how we are as people. To me, someone I hang out with telling me to consider others more is not some sort of inordinate personal attack on my identity. 

 

It means Hawke is telling her "I don't like your personality and you should change it". That is dislike, not just disagreement.  

 

I don't see how that follows at all. I could very well like Isabella's personality quite a lot, but want her to consider others when she acts more. I don't suddenly think she's funny, or appreciate that she's very vocal about how or what she wants, or that she has a great sense of timing, or whatever. 

 

The majority of Rivalry points don't come from personal attacks with Isabella - they come from being selfless around her. She's the one that brings up the fact that you're a stick in the mud, not the other way around. 

 

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.)  

Whereas I can't see how the interactions with Isabella could ever come even close to dislike, or even tension. 

 

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.)  

See, to me that's not at all neutral. That's a significant personal challenge. If someone were to push me on a leadership role, we'd be in an incredibly direct conflict. 

[In Exile]

TurretSyndrome, 

 

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.

 

To me, being friends with someone is all about how compatible we are as people - it's the fit. Let's take Isabella and Varric as examples - they're fun to hang out with, they're not serious, etc. They're people I'd love to hang out with. The fact that we'd disagree over things - say, helping others for not very much in return rather than acting out of self-interest - is not a significant issue at all to me. 

 

The other part of friendship - being able to trust people to be there for you - doesn't have anything to do with disagreeing. That's just about what the sort of people you're dealing with are like. 

 

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.

 

I've never found that to be a thing that's true, IRL. 

 

 

[TurretSyndrome]

@Ryzaki The way the rivalry is handled was very poor, I agree, but what I really take an issue with is the fact that the game punishes me if my companions don't have full friendship or full rivalry, and instead have mixed feelings for me(neither friend nor rival).

 

So a guy like Fenris who hates me in one playthrough tells me all about himself and gives me his QB quests at 50% or more rivalry but doesn't do that if he agrees with me on a few things and disagrees with me on others.

 

Because of the way this system is built, it forces you to either pander to a certain companion, shower them with gifts or do whatever hateful things you can to make them your rival. It prevents you from roleplaying however you want and forces you to micromanage and metagame to control their F/R bars.

[Ryzaki]

@Turret Syndrome: DAO did the same with straight approval. If it wasn't 80+ you missed out on plenty of things.

 

I really dislike your usage of the word hate. Hawke doesn't really do anything worthy of full blown hatred from companions until near end game (and the choices he does make that are worthy of hatred usually result in the companion leave *not helping Fenris with Hadriana, Killing Anders in the fade, not helping Isabela with her book* only exception is Merrill (who kind of makes sense she's a recluse and hawke's gang are the only people she knows so even if he's a bit of an ******* it's better than knowing no one at all).

 

Things Hawke do to encourage rivalry with Fenris is usually either coddling him (telling him to stop whining usually gives you friendship points), and siding with mages. You have about...4 times to encourage slavery. Mostly you just let slavers go (but you can easily max Fenris while even killing them). The one time you take a slave is that elven girl and I already said how that's probably better than her being free alternative. Honestly you never have to do anything other than side with the mages to max Fenris rivalry approval. Being pro mage and trying to talk to slavers (Trying to talk to them is not the same as letting them go but Fenris will still get rivalry boots) is enough to max him early on. I really don't get people who had trouble trying to rival Fenris. The one thing he gets his major rivalry boosts from is mage freedom. If you're pro that you can max his rivalry. If you're not why on earth are you trying to rival him. It just entails you actually bring him with you and not just leave him in his mansion and somehow expect the bar to max with gift spamming like you could in DAO.

 

As for pandering showering them with gifts. Gifts increase your rivalry score you know...they just have to be a rival in the first place. As for micromanaging and metagaming I had to do the same in DAO with normal approval. I had to watch my words. You just had a lot more chances in DAO to increase/decrease approval thanks to the laughably broken gift system.

 

Like really...what are you saying that you're only getting Fenris to 50% when you're bringing him with you? And if you're not bringing him with you that's *your* fault not the game mechanics. Vast majority of approval comes from quests.

 

Edit: Actually to be fair Anders does say he hates pro-templar Hawke but A. I don't think he actually means hate because otherwise he wouldn't be shoving his tongue down Hawke's throat and B. Rivalmance can be played for anywhere from complete d-bag Hawke to nice guy Hawke.

[Quill74Pen]

Oh yeah? Sounds pretty dumb. I'm dropping you from my party. 

 

 

Quill74Pen Rivalry +10

 

Morrigan Friendship +3

 

I "liked" this post. Oh, the irony. LOL

[TurretSyndrome]

@ Ryzaki  Ok, first of all, in DA:O you didn't have to max out your friendship with your companion. Sure, you'd miss out on their content, but the game did not punish you for being neutral as opposed to not liking you. If they didn't like you, they could do anything from stay upset to fighting or leaving you. But if they stayed neutral to you, they wouldn't lean one way or another, just follow you around and not talk to you much.

 

Of course, I'm not saying DA:O is not without it's flaws when it comes to it's approval system, because as you said, the gift system there is broken. But it at least doesn't force me to go out of my way to get the companions either to like me or dislike me by the end of the game. 

 

You don't like it when I use the word hate? Well, Anders tells me he hates me, Merril tells me she hates me and Fenris spits on me for taking a slave(not that I feel it's worng or anything mind you). What I'm trying to get at is that you just don't do disagreeable things, you also do hateful things, which are lazily laced onto Rivalry.

 

You keep talking about how you can easily max this guy's Rivalry or that guy's friendship, but what I'm saying is, I shouldn't have to do all that. This is a roleplaying game and I want to roleplay. I don't want to babysit them for points, I don't want to pander to them, to reluctantly agree with them, or micromanage them, and metagame for them.

 

I just want to play the game with the companions I want to have around me and the game should be able to take care of how companions will respond to me as time goes by. If the game does not have a system where it can identify not only how the companions feel about me, but also how much time they have spent with me, then the system itself is in fault, not the player for not choosing to babysit the companions and manually aid the game's system. 

 

Let's say I'm roleplaying a Mage who is neither pro Mage nor pro Templar, but sympathetic to mages under templar scrutiny. So let's say I bring Fenris with me to everything in the game, from the point of acquiring him. He already doesn't like me because I'm a Mage and I told him that I only strive to survive(survival option after finishing his quest). So I help mages out and he dislikes that, but I figfht slavers and he likes that. So in the end, let's say he stays in the neutral zone. So at this point, just so I can get the QB quests, why must I go out of my way to get his friendship or rivalry to 50%. Why can't the game handle that? Is it my fault the game's system is so pathetic that it can't factor in the amount of time I spent with him despite his approval of my actions?

 

If you think it is my fault, then we can stop there. Remember, we are not playing the game for the companions. We should not have to give special attention to them so that the game won't to punish us at the end. 

[Ryzaki]

You don't have to max out rivalry either. You need ~80 rivalry to get Fenris to side with you if you use the persuasion with Meredith I believe.

 

@ Ryzaki  Ok, first of all, in DA:O you didn't have to max out your friendship with your companion. Sure, you'd miss out on their content, but the game did not punish you for being neutral as opposed to not liking you. If they didn't like you, they could do anything from stay upset to fighting or leaving you. But if they stayed neutral to you, they wouldn't lean one way or another, just follow you around and not talk to you much.

 

Of course, I'm not saying DA:O is not without it's flaws when it comes to it's approval system, because as you said, the gift system there is broken. But it at least doesn't force me to go out of my way to get the companions either to like me or dislike me by the end of the game. 

 

You don't like it when I use the word hate? Well, Anders tells me he hates me, Merril tells me she hates me and Fenris spits on me for taking a slave(not that I feel it's worng or anything mind you). What I'm trying to get at is that you just don't do disagreeable things, you also do hateful things, which are lazily laced onto Rivalry.

 

You keep talking about how you can easily max this guy's Rivalry or that guy's friendship, but what I'm saying is, I shouldn't have to do all that. This is a roleplaying game and I want to roleplay. I don't want to babysit them for points, I don't want to pander to them, to reluctantly agree with them, or micromanage them, and metagame for them.

 

I just want to play the game with the companions I want to have around me and the game should be able to take care of how companions will respond to me as time goes by. If the game does not have a system where it can identify not only how the companions feel about me, but also how much time they have spent with me, then the system itself is in fault, not the player for not choosing to babysit the companions and manually aid the game's system. 

 

Let's say I'm roleplaying a Mage who is neither pro Mage nor pro Templar, but sympathetic to mages under templar scrutiny. So let's say I bring Fenris with me to everything in the game, from the point of acquiring him. He already doesn't like me because I'm a Mage and I told him that I only strive to survive(survival option after finishing his quest). So I help mages out and he dislikes that, but I figfht slavers and he likes that. So in the end, let's say he stays in the neutral zone. So at this point, just so I can get the QB quests, why must I go out of my way to get his friendship or rivalry to 50%. Why can't the game handle that? Is it my fault the game's system is so pathetic that it can't factor in the amount of time I spent with him despite his approval of my actions?

 

If you think it is my fault, then we can stop there. Remember, we are not playing the game for the companions. We should not have to give special attention to them so that the game won't to punish us at the end. 

 

You don't lose companions for them being neutral at the end of the game first off. You lose them if you choose to side against their faction and their approval hasn't reached a certain threshold (which is not maxed btw). Fenris is one of the picker options but he doesn't have to be maxed to get him to side with you. His rivalry has to be HIGH true but not maxed. So that's the first thing. (I had him side with me ~80 approval but I had romanced him so I'm not sure if that made a difference).

 

You've never said you hated someone when they really pissed you off? Merill goes and calls Hawke just a stupid shem in the same conversation. And if you rivalmancer her the first thing she does for that is apologize. Fenris does the same thing. 

 

Anders though. That I'll give you. He has enough screws loose that he'd go for that.

 

Though yes some of the hateful things are lazily integrated into rivalry but most of the major hateful things? Kill the romance. THe minor hateful things? Can easily be justified so they're not Hawke being petty. (Though I really did wish flirting/rejecting didn't count as friendship/rivalry respectively that was a bit annoying. Freaking 25 friendship hit when rivalmancing Isabela is ridculous cause she unlike the rest has a very strict time window).

 

Then don't. You don't have to do that to keep them. I don't know why you're acting as though you are. You aren't.

 

You want to keep Fenris and side with the mages? Then yeah you have to get him to at least 80 rivalry. Merrill on the other hand? (talking about siding with the templars here) You can just have 1 conversation with her and as long as her rivalry isn't too high she'll gladly go along with you. (The wiki says this isn't the case with a maxed out rival Anders but this has always happened to me. The only time I got Merrill to turn on me was when my Hawke never spoke to her ever. I had one conversation with her and she still sided with me once. And I never took her anywhere. The mind boggled.) Aveline won't betray you period. Isabela has to be 50% rival OR friend not to ditch you in act 2 but it's laughably easy to get Isabela's friendship that high and after she comes back in act 2 she's locked in. Varric is like Aveline. Not ditching.

 

So you'll lose at most 1 companion. Oh noes. If you're really not willing to put in a little effort to keep 1 companion...I really feel zero sympathy for you.

 

The game did take care of how they responded...you didn't like it XD

 

I have done a play through you described and ended up more than 50% rivalry...but as I said I picked the talking to the slavers first and then killing them. And giving him gifts when he was in rival zone.

 

You want the game to bend over backwards to you and for you to make no accommodations whatsoever towards it despite it...not being necessary. If you side with the templars Fenris will side with you no matter your score (likewise with Anders and the mages). So...I'm not getting the whole you being forced to this. You're not.

[AlanC9]

Of course, I'm not saying DA:O is not without it's flaws when it comes to it's approval system, because as you said, the gift system there is broken. But it at least doesn't force me to go out of my way to get the companions either to like me or dislike me by the end of the game. 

 

 Isn't this a little overblown? So you don't get a QB quest or two on this run. Is that actually a big deal?

 

The only actual problem I see comes from the way the CCC system tends to lock you into a particular party makeup at the higher levels, but I think this is a design problem in itself.

[TurretSyndrome]

@ Ryzaki

 

The fact that you're telling me to get his rivalry to 80 in itself shows that the system is flawed. If the game can't judge for itself that the person who is neutral to your character should have fewer reservations to go against you than a person who completely opposes you, then it is a flaw in that system, and if I choose not to manually handle it and correct it doesn't make me someone who wants the game to "bend over" for me, like you seem to accuse me of being.

 

I want to face consequences which are appropriate to the alignment my companion has towards me, be it love, friendship, agreement, disagreement, dislike or hate. The consequences I face when the companion dislikes me or hates me should be harsher than the consequences I would face if the companion merely disagrees with me. 

 

The following is a hypothetical situation. Now, let's say I get 10 Rivalry points for helping the mages in a quest, and 10 Friendship points for killing the slavers. So where am I at? 0. That means Fenris agrees with me for killing the slavers, and disagrees that I helped the mages. So, in another scenario if I help the mages, but this time let the slavers go, I get 20 rivalry points from Fenris. That means he disagrees with me on both counts. So, here according to the game, I get the QBs at 20 F/R points. That means that the guy who agrees with me on one count and disagrees with me on another does not give me the quest, but the guy who disagrees with me on both counts is willing to open up to me? What the heck?

 

@ Alan C9  I'm not obsessed with QBs, the game is, since that is what it uses to judge if the companion should turn on you or not.

[In Exile]

TurretSyndrome,

 

@ Ryzaki  Ok, first of all, in DA:O you didn't 

have to max out your friendship with your companion. Sure, you'd miss out on their content, but the game did not punish you for being neutral as opposed to not liking you. If they didn't like you, they could do anything from stay upset to fighting or leaving you. But if they stayed neutral to you, they wouldn't lean one way or another, just follow you around and not talk to you much.

That's just false. Characters could leave the partyor attempt to kill you if you had a neutral approval - see Zevran for instance when it came to the a closer point in the endgame. 

 

If you think it is my fault, then we can stop there. Remember, we are not playing the game for the companions. We should not have to give special attention to them so that the game won't to punish us at the end.

 

Well, why not? If you don't give "special attention" to the people around you, do you ever build ties with them? 

 

 

If the game can't judge for itself that the person who is neutral to your character should have fewer reservations to go against you than a person who completely opposes you

The game does do that. Fenris is neutral to you and not a fan of mages. So you side with the group he thinks shouldn't be free, and he stands up for his beliefs. How is that not totally in character? If anything, people compromising strongly held beliefs because they like you is nonsense regardless of where you are on the scale. 

 

The consequences I face when the companion dislikes me or hates me should be harsher than the consequences I would face if the companion merely disagrees with me.

 

Sure, but that's not what happens when you're going through the rivalry story with someone. Eventually, you sort yourselves out. It keeps going downhill until there's this big crisis point that resolves the tension. 

 

That means that the guy who agrees with me on one count and disagrees with me on another does not give me the quest, but the guy who disagrees with me on both counts is willing to open up to me? What the heck?

Have you never actually had a fight with someone where, in the course of that fight, people say things about themselves? There's nothing weird about this. 
 

It's like two people debating about whether or not we need to stricter road safety rules. If someone "opens up" - say by angrily telling you they lost a sibling to a drunk driver - is that really "being willing to open up to you" in the same way? That's how it works via rivalry. 

[TurretSyndrome]

Zevran can be considered an exception, since he's being invited back into the crows by Talisen. If he leaves you and is at neutral, it means that either you just neglected him(meaning you just left him at the camp all the time), or the neutrality is the sum of all the approvals and disapprovals he's had with your views, which brings me to the inherent problem with the approval systems in both games. 

 

The problem that both DA:O and DA 2 games' approval systems have is that they do not recognize the amount of time you spend with the companions regardless of the alignment you have with that companion. Zevran is a perfect example. You can bring along Zevran to all events but if he is neutral towards you, he leaves. The problem there is that there is no difference between a player who spent a lot of time with Zevran and the player who just didn't use him at all. This happens in DA 2 as well, but gets much more ridiculous as I've explained in my previous posts.

 

The "special attention" part I'm talking about is the fact that we have to constantly keep an eye on their bloody bars, and the points they get from the conversation. You are already "building ties" with them by involving them in all the conversations and doing their quests. But by constantly switching up the team, removing companions from certain events, you are not "building ties" with the companions, you are bowing down to the stupid game mechanics of the F/R system. 

 

To the rest of your defending the system Exile. Sigh... It seems we are fundamentally on different lanes here. Rivalry is a combination of disagreement and hate as seen in the game. You get rivalry points for both helping the mages and taking the elf girl as a slave. That itself to me means that "neutral" is better than rivalry, and it seems you don't feel that way. It's best to leave it at that.

[In Exile]

TurretSyndrome, 

 

Zevran can be considered an exception, since he's being invited back into the crows by Talisen. If he leaves you and is at neutral, it means that either you just neglected him(meaning you just left him at the camp all the time), or the neutrality is the sum of all the approvals and disapprovals he's had with your views, which brings me to the inherent problem with the approval systems in both games.

 

Zevran is a character who leaves you if you're being neutral. Sure, there's a reason for it - but that's true in DA2 as well. Each character is faced with a (potential) option to pick between Hawke or their strongly held personal view (order for Aveline, oppressed Mages for Merrill, the perceived danger of Tevinter 2 for Fenris, etc.). 

 

 

The problem that both DA:O and DA 2 games' approval systems have is that they do not recognize the amount of time you spend with the companions regardless of the alignment you have with that companion. Zevran is a perfect example. You can bring along Zevran to all events but if he is neutral towards you, he leaves. The problem there is that there is no difference between a player who spent a lot of time with Zevran and the player who just didn't use him at all. This happens in DA 2 as well, but gets much more ridiculous as I've explained in my previous posts.

 

But amount of time is totally irrelevant. If I know someone - but I'm absolutely "meh" about them as a person - why would I side with them over what is an incredibly personal and important to me? I know them, I don't particularly like them or dislike them... it's one of those "it's not personal, it's business" situations. 

 

The "special attention" part I'm talking about is the fact that we have to constantly keep an eye on their bloody bars, and the points they get from the conversation. You are already "building ties" with them by involving them in all the conversations and doing their quests. But by constantly switching up the team, removing companions from certain events, you are not "building ties" with the companions, you are bowing down to the stupid game mechanics of the F/R system.

 

I just can't relate to that, because I've never had that problem. I've never been in a situation where I couldn't very easily - and intuitively - max out approval for characters. It just simply hasn't happened to me, in either DA:O/DA2. 

 

You're certainly not building ties by just having people around you. It's why people aren't super besties with everyone they work with. Sometimes you see those people for years, but it still doesn't make you more than acquaintances. 

[CybAnt1]

Again, I guess my problem is I get hung up by language. I know the rivalry system in DA2 means there is no actual animosity simply disagreement, but ... rivalry does usually indicate animosity in most senses. 

 

Yes, particularly in forums like this, the goal is to get people to disagree with each other agreeably. Hopefully mature folk can learn to do that, it keeps threads from getting locked. 

 

It's just that in real life, with close friends, not anonymous strangers on the Internet, disagreements get personal, because the people are interpersonally connected, and feelings SHOULD come into play. It's exactly why DA2 lets you get ANGRY with companions as well as other people. "Enough of your crap, Oghren!" (OK, wrong game.) 

 

http://thesaurus.com/browse/rivalry

 

synonyms:

antagonism

animosity

antipathy

hatred

hostility

 

It also usually indicates the presence of competition. And what would a PC and a companion be competing over? Well, other than the love of a third companion in a love triangle, I guess over who should be leader, and their ... dislike ... of the leader's decision-making.

 

Anyway, ultimately this also remains a historical argument over "how DA2 did it," we do know now at this point they won't be using a rivalry system in DAI, and it will be some kind of single-axis friendship/loyalty system, but of course, we still don't know exact implementation.

[TurretSyndrome]

Thank you Ant, and to add to that, DA 2 is even harsher than real life. If I was a companion in DA 2 of a guy who wants to let Feynriel get possessed, I won't just disagree with the guy and give him rivalry points. I will tell him to stop, if he doesn't probably even fight him. Now, I'm not asking for the system to be super realistic like that, even though I did wish for companions to really stand against what I did every now and then, I just want for it to make sense. F/R with it's Rivalry being better than neutral, just doesn't make any damn sense.

[CybAnt1]

Concur. Don't get a system where neutrality is worse than rivalry, both in terms of end results (do they stay or leave and turn on you at crisis points), and benefits (i.e. high rivalry gives a bonus, which is better than 'meh'/neutrality). 

 

The game pressures you into a ridiculous consistency, because really the only "win" is to push them to either extreme, of extreme rivalry or friendship.... again, if you're like me with a lot of my friends, and you try and be disagreeable to them occasionally and supportive to them occasionally, you wind up at "lose". 

 

And sorry, no, as I'll keep repeating, rivalmances don't make sense. Friendship can become love, happens all the time. Grudging respect rarely does. 

[javeart]

It's fun hating some companions and making them hate you, without the risk of them leaving you, though the "break-ups" dialogues are also fun and in some context that reaction would make much more sense...

 

I agree, anyway, that it's always bad when an aproval or reputation system force you to roleplay your character in a certain direction in order to get all the content or to achieve the best outcome. In general, I'd say I don't like it when relationships whith companion are treated like "missions" themselves, so you have to say the "right" things when talking to them, or give them gifts or whatever to keep them happy and see more content (like in DA:O)... 

 

I know it's not going this route, but wouldn't it be possible to get some dialogues with a companion if you (mostly) get along and some others if (mostly) you don't, and reduce the accounting of the rivalry/frienship points to a few critical decisions or dialogues choices? That would work for me, I think

 

 

And sorry, no, as I'll keep repeating, rivalmances don't make sense. Friendship can become love, happens all the time. Grudging respect rarely does. 

 

I have to disagree. One gets to see relationships based on the most varied and unexpected combinations of emotions an feelings. In fact, I think the Fenris rivalmance is my favourite in DA II and I don't find it specially hard to believe or unrealistic ... 

[CybAnt1]

Hmmm, well, that's a point. I mean, that practically drives the plot of most of the Hollywood romantic comedies of the 30s and 40s.

 

The guy and the gal start out hating and despising each other, and then end up falling in love. Other recent films have kind of explored that dynamic, most notably I guess Mr. & Mrs. Smith. 

 

Mr. John Smith (Brad Pitt) & Mrs. Jane Smith (Angelina Jolie) realize they are both secret agents and their marriage is a lie. Not only that, they both have orders to kill each other. This leads to a 'marital spat' that outdoes anything in War of the Roses, except they're not just throwing vases and bottles at each other, they're shooting at each other. And of course that marvelous line, after she momentarily kicks his ass, "Who's your daddy, now?"

 

Of course, eventually they realize they've both been set up, and they need to team up professionally to get even. While doing so, they fall sorta back into actual love with each other again. "That fine line between hate and love". 

 

Cue happy ending. 

 

The fact is, in my three playthroughs of DA2, I only tried out one rivalmance. But in all of them, I usually tried to get friendship instead of rivalry, so what I know about the rivalmances is more from reading about them than experiencing them. 

[AlanC9]

I agree, anyway, that it's always bad when an aproval or reputation system force you to roleplay your character in a certain direction in order to get all the content or to achieve the best outcome. In general, I'd say I don't like it when relationships whith companion are treated like "missions" themselves, so you have to say the "right" things when talking to them, or give them gifts or whatever to keep them happy and see more content (like in DA:O)...

What's the extent of this principle? Surely any decision with possible bad outcomes can penalize a PC for being role-played in a way that leads to one of the bad outcomes. (See, for instance, the terrible gyrations ME3's ending puts some players through as they desperately try to rationalize Destroy even though their PCs really want to Refuse.)

[javeart]

@CybAnt1

 

Certainly there's much more extreme examples of love/hate romances in films and literature...  I haven't completed all rivalmances either, but at least in the ones  I've seen completed none LI's tries to kill you (well, except for Anders, of course)  

[AlanC9]

@ Alan C9 I'm not obsessed with QBs, the game is, since that is what it uses to judge if the companion should turn on you or not.

What's wrong with having a companion turn on you, though? It's interesting content, and you're nearly at the end of the game anyway. (Like I said earlier, I do see an issue with CCCs)

My only problem with the ME3 VS confrontation is that it's too hard to get into a situation where you actually have to shoot the VS.

Edit: I'm not sticking up for the mechanism for this happening being neutrality, though. I agree that this didn't really work.

[TurretSyndrome]

What's wrong with having a companion turn on you, though? It's interesting content, and you're nearly at the end of the game anyway. (Like I said earlier, I do see an issue with CCCs)

My only problem with the ME3 VS confrontation is that it's too hard to get into a situation where you actually have to shoot the VS.

Edit: I'm not sticking up for the mechanism for this happening being neutrality, though. I agree that this didn't really work.

 

No no, I don't have any problem whatsoever with companions turning on me, in fact I want that to happen every now and then, keeps the PC aware of his/her party members, instead of using them as minions only useful for combat. What bothered me in DA 2 was when they did turn on me(which sadly only really happens in DA 2 at the end), it was because I was not a big enough rival or a friend. I was baffled that at that point, Rivalry > neutrality. 

[Ryzaki]

@ Ryzaki

 

The fact that you're telling me to get his rivalry to 80 in itself shows that the system is flawed. If the game can't judge for itself that the person who is neutral to your character should have fewer reservations to go against you than a person who completely opposes you, then it is a flaw in that system, and if I choose not to manually handle it and correct it doesn't make me someone who wants the game to "bend over" for me, like you seem to accuse me of being.

 

I want to face consequences which are appropriate to the alignment my companion has towards me, be it love, friendship, agreement, disagreement, dislike or hate. The consequences I face when the companion dislikes me or hates me should be harsher than the consequences I would face if the companion merely disagrees with me. 

 

The following is a hypothetical situation. Now, let's say I get 10 Rivalry points for helping the mages in a quest, and 10 Friendship points for killing the slavers. So where am I at? 0. That means Fenris agrees with me for killing the slavers, and disagrees that I helped the mages. So, in another scenario if I help the mages, but this time let the slavers go, I get 20 rivalry points from Fenris. That means he disagrees with me on both counts. So, here according to the game, I get the QBs at 20 F/R points. That means that the guy who agrees with me on one count and disagrees with me on another does not give me the quest, but the guy who disagrees with me on both counts is willing to open up to me? What the heck?

 

@ Alan C9  I'm not obsessed with QBs, the game is, since that is what it uses to judge if the companion should turn on you or not.

 

For the hundredth time. Rivalry is not hatred. It's not. Also if you're in the middle of the scale you're neutral at best (and you can't even get Fenris final convos if you're only 50 rivalry ANYWAY). And I already told you how to get rivalry while still killing slavers but you can't be bothered to do it so...

 

Also stop saying rivarly < neutrality. If you got to a 100 rivalry you and them developed a respect or each other.  They flat out tell you that in the final QB. They may not overly like you but they respect you. You have more personal conversations with them on full rivalry than as neutral. In neutral they don't feel strongly about you. Not enough to turn against their principles. In high rivalry they have a measure of respect for your abilities and accomplishments and you trying to get them to get over their selfishness/hatred of mages/stupidity with bloodmagic/being a hardline psycho. Thus when you say you're siding with mages/templars they have enough respect for you to judge it for a good reason.

 

As for Fenris only siding with mages on full rivalry that's easy enough to explain he flat out says in his QB maybe it's time for him to get over his hatred of magic. Helping the mages is part of that. Without full rivalry that conversation doesn't occur thus Fenris lets his hatred for the mages override any loyalty he feels to Hawke. (and if friendship Fenris just goes with it cause he and Hawke are buds and Hawke > Mages). Same for sub 100 rivalry. But replace buds with lovers. 

 

Also you can say the same thing about massive approval gains from gifts vs high disapproval gains in conversation.

 

Also you could lose Wynne and Leliana (if unhardened) regardless of approval if you poisoned the ashes. Zevran turned on you if his approval wasn't high enough. Morrigan always ditched you if you didn't do the DR. If you picked Loghain Alistair always bounced. DA2 isn't a special snowflake in this regard.

 

Also simply talking to the slavers (trying to find out damn information) usually gives you at least +5 rivalry so yeah it's not that hard to turn that situation into a rivalry gain without breaking character unless your character is a bull in a china shop that doesn't try to get information from his targets.

 

(Hell even when I pick that "make him talk" and kill him afterwards I still get max rivalry. Are you giving him the gifts? That's about +30 rivalry by itself).