19658 réponses à ce sujet

[Wulfram]

I think party composition is too much of an artificial meta-game limitation to hang too much on.  And approval can struggle when you start demanding too much of it.  I mean you can get a broad sense, but having to work out whether PC A is being favoured more than PC B is liable to come up with odd results.  And then mandate meta-gaming to avoid those odd results.

[Fetunche]

I just want to play a fun game, not an over complicated mess with obligatory metagaming.

[SnakeCode]

I just want to play a fun game, not an over complicated mess with obligatory metagaming.

People will metagame anyway, there are always characters at odds with each other in these games (Alistair/Morrigan, Anders/Fenris) and people will undoubtedly play the system to get maximum approval from each and every complanion.

 

It's not really something i'd love to see in the game (getting penalised for showing favouritism) but as a staunch supporter of companions being masters of their own destinies i'd be a hypocrite to argue against such a feature. We should only be able to control our own pc, how they feel, what they want etc. Companions feelings should be their own and not be abled to be dominated by the player. It should be their choice whether to be mad/resentful of the PC, not ours.

 

It's the same reason i've argued against people wanting to change companions religious beliefs, sexuality or world views. At the most we should be able to only minimally influence these (sexuality aside) otherwise the companions start to feel like cardboard cut-outs just existing to serve/please the PC.

[Vapaa]

Favoritism is a character interaction problem that shouldn't be tied in any way with the gameplay, period.

[Dean_the_Young]

But surely that punishment already takes place in Dragon Age via the approval system. Making choices they disagree with, regardless of reason results in a decrease in approval. I'm not sure I'd want an extra punishment added on top of what may already be a complex balancing act in Inquisition ( I do my utmost to make all the companions like my PC )

 

Surely? Not really. DA certainly comes closer than ME, in which Shepard was pretty much canonical friend regardless, but in DA outside of some catty romance-related dialogue (party banter and Wynn) the PC's relationship with Character A doesn't become a factor with character B. Character B's relationship with the PC isn't influenced by the PC's relationship with Character B, no matter what else the PC does with rival A.

 

 

It's not even that I'm saying we need drastic game-ending consequences or mandatory player deaths. 'Punishment' is a pretty biased word for 'the player doing things other characters don't approve of.' It doesn't even have to be hostile in nature.

 

To bring a ME example: in ME1 the PC can flirt with A/K well before Virmire, even starting the love triangle nonsense with Liara. In what way would it be considered 'punishment' if Ashley or Kaiden, the one you can't romance, brought up concerns of fraternization between you and the LI? It could be polite, respectful, and even used as foreshadowing by letting the subordinate place it in terms of 'if it came down between them and someone else, who would you choose? And who would everyone else be expecting you to choose?'  And in response Shepard can be offered an option to roleplay their defense or justification, if they want: it could be 'I wouldn't let myself be biased', or 'stay in your lane, I know what I'm doing,' or 'I can do what I want, the rules apply to me,' which would all be met with varying levels of restrained skepticism and disapproval.

 

And... that's it. Maybe a little post-Virmire apology if you sacrificed A/K as a love interest. Maybe even a little guilt on their part, for thinking they pushed you to choose them.

 

 

 

Of course, it can be acrimonious as well, even without being major. In the context of DA2, expanding upon the already venemous dialogue between Fenris and Anders as the end game. It could be some variation of 'why are you still here, it's clear he agrees with me,' with a possible accusation that Fenris and/or Anders is staying close to Hawke with an intent to stab them in the back if Hawke ultimately chooses the wrong side. In this context, Hawke's favoritism with Anders or Fenris frames the conversation and resentment.

 

An entirely separate conversation could be Fenris or Anders confronting Hawke about why the PC is getting along so well with the other.

[Former_Fiend]

The last thing I'd want in DA2 is more Anders/Fenris whining/bickering, especially if they tried to get me involved with it. 

[Xilizhra]

Surely? Not really. DA certainly comes closer than ME, in which Shepard was pretty much canonical friend regardless, but in DA outside of some catty romance-related dialogue (party banter and Wynn) the PC's relationship with Character A doesn't become a factor with character B. Character B's relationship with the PC isn't influenced by the PC's relationship with Character B, no matter what else the PC does with rival A.

 

 

It's not even that I'm saying we need drastic game-ending consequences or mandatory player deaths. 'Punishment' is a pretty biased word for 'the player doing things other characters don't approve of.' It doesn't even have to be hostile in nature.

 

To bring a ME example: in ME1 the PC can flirt with A/K well before Virmire, even starting the love triangle nonsense with Liara. In what way would it be considered 'punishment' if Ashley or Kaiden, the one you can't romance, brought up concerns of fraternization between you and the LI? It could be polite, respectful, and even used as foreshadowing by letting the subordinate place it in terms of 'if it came down between them and someone else, who would you choose? And who would everyone else be expecting you to choose?'  And in response Shepard can be offered an option to roleplay their defense or justification, if they want: it could be 'I wouldn't let myself be biased', or 'stay in your lane, I know what I'm doing,' or 'I can do what I want, the rules apply to me,' which would all be met with varying levels of restrained skepticism and disapproval.

 

And... that's it. Maybe a little post-Virmire apology if you sacrificed A/K as a love interest. Maybe even a little guilt on their part, for thinking they pushed you to choose them.

Wouldn't the time to bring up such concerns be when Shepard started being everyone's warrior therapist? Or is that less of a problem? I'm not really sure how the rules work here... I'm also not really sure how the rules stop one from being biased towards someone because you have feelings for them even though you're not allowed to date, unless the point of the rules is to squelch the perception of favoritism rather than the favoritism itself. At any rate, I would hope that I would be able to make a reply to the effect of "we're not dating or anything, at least not for the duration of this mission; if you have any specific concerns about any incidents you think show bias, please tell me."

 

 

The last thing I'd want in DA2 is more Anders/Fenris whining/bickering, especially if they tried to get me involved with it. 

And this sentiment is definitely one to keep in mind.

 

Also, I personally believe that favoritism concerns over whom you pick to go with you during missions is intruding too much on gameplay mechanics, especially on higher difficulty levels where one person's setup is vital for you.

[Dean_the_Young]

Wouldn't the time to bring up such concerns be when Shepard started being everyone's warrior therapist? Or is that less of a problem? I'm not really sure how the rules work here... I'm also not really sure how the rules stop one from being biased towards someone because you have feelings for them even though you're not allowed to date, unless the point of the rules is to squelch the perception of favoritism rather than the favoritism itself. At any rate, I would hope that I would be able to make a reply to the effect of "we're not dating or anything, at least not for the duration of this mission; if you have any specific concerns about any incidents you think show bias, please tell me."

 

 

If anyone is being a warrior therapist here, it's Ashley or Kaiden giving counseling to Shepard. There the ones raising an issue with your conduct with the other.

 

The 'I won't let myself be biased' route would cover what you'd like.

[Nocte ad Mortem]

I'm for a level of disapproval from the companions, depending on what you do. I don't think they should support you no matter what. That has reflected some in the games so far, but I think it could be expanded. I would support more chances for characters to leave or turn on you if you side against them on major issues. I felt DA2 especially was far too lenient, especially with characters like Anders and Fenris that have extremist beliefs. I think it would be great and really effective towards making the game world seem more real if characters more often stated their opinions on the direction you were taking the group. If you constantly act against their core beliefs then it absolutely makes sense for them to bring it up and to not have as close or warm of a relationship with you as they would otherwise.

 

Of course, people can meta game around this in some ways, but my opinion is a flat "who cares". There are ways to get around some of it, like flags pinging whether you take a companion or not and having them bring up choices at base. Honestly, though, I don't care even a little how other people choose to play their games. If they want to be everyone's BFF and carefully manage party per quest to keep it up, then I don't care how they explain that in relationship to the story. Maybe they even think of it as actively manipulating their companions mixed with sheer luck. Regardless, it effects me not at all. 

 

What I don't think, though, is that the game should tell you that your belief set on dealing with issues was "wrong". There should be pros and cons to taking different paths. The game is just not fun when they brand whole groups (templar supporters, mage supporters, elf supporters, human supporters, Qunari, etc) as full stop wrong. The great thing, in my opinion, about the DA games is that they have a very interesting, very detailed world built with all these issues that most even slightly moderate individuals can relate to and see the different sides of. I don't want them ruining that just to teach you a lesson for perceived favoritism towards individual characters, whether that even was true vs you just agreeing with their viewpoint with no relevance to them as a person. Some very extreme decisions I could see being punished, but I want the overall moral greyness of the world to remain.

[Xilizhra]

If anyone is being a warrior therapist here, it's Ashley or Kaiden giving counseling to Shepard. There the ones raising an issue with your conduct with the other.

 

The 'I won't let myself be biased' route would cover what you'd like.

But it's stated in a rather less intelligent manner. At least let it be elaborated on instead of being blunt and easily dismissable.

[Former_Fiend]

I don't mind a certain level of disapproval. Hell, I don't mind them having lines that if you cross they'll just up and walk, or even draw steel on you. 

 

I just think the specific application in regards to "playing favorites" is a rather petty application of it compared to applying it towards ideals. If, for example, Anders walked if you opposed mage freedom enough, I'd prefer if he said something along the lines of "You're a hypocrite and a bigot, Hawke. I'll have nothing more to do with you!" rather than "You always take the elf's side! I'm done!"

 

Maybe an offhanded comment about how both us and whatever companion agrees with the issue that drove them away can take this inquisition and shove it, but I wouldn't want it to be presented as the sole reason for them leaving. 

[Nocte ad Mortem]

I agree that favoritism shouldn't be the main concern, it should be the issues. It's just exceptionally childish if the characters focus on your relationship with certain characters over the world changing decisions you're making that impact their most deeply held beliefs. Although, I will admit, both Anders and Fenris could be pretty childish. It wasn't my favorite quality about them and definitely not something I really want to see continued with other characters.  

[Former_Fiend]

Chose them specifically because the idea of them walking out over the "You always take his side!" is disturbingly plausible.

[Dean_the_Young]

But it's stated in a rather less intelligent manner. At least let it be elaborated on instead of being blunt and easily dismissable.

...wait, you thought that was the extent of the dialogue Shepard would provide?

[jorori22]

"If am a dwarf or qunari, will the game still have the most romances in a Bioware game?" I think was the general intent.

Yes, thanks. My English is not very good

[HuldraDancer]

About the favoritism thing that some people are talking about while I think it would drive me up the wall to no end (I'm one of those who like to bring my LI along if possible) but if something like that is implemented and someone else comes up to you and confronts you about it I think there should be an option to give a list of reasons why you bring that person like, "Well X is the only healer we have that can go out into combat it would make more sense for me to take them instead of Y." Or something along those lines, for example when I don't play a Rouge in DAO I take Leliana with me everywhere because she was the only one in my party who could pick locks didn't mean that I favored her I just needed her. So if one of my followers tried to call me out on playing favorites I would want to explain my reasons to them for the so called favoritism at least.

[Abelas Forever!]

I'm not sure about the favouritism. I mean your companions are  professionals and if your actions don't conflict with their beliefs then I see that they might not have any problems with you even if you don't take them with you all the time. Of course it would make sense that they might ask you do you really need them if you never take them with you or that there is one character who gets very angry if she/he is not taken into quests most of the time or that there are characters who don't like it if they are not taken with you if the quest requires their expertise. What comes to romances in DA with your companions I don't see it as a bad thing. It just happens. If you are in romantic relationship with somebody then it might affect your decisions but also other things such as friendship might affect your decisions too. So if you are in romantic relationship with one of your companions then some of your companions might question your acts and might not agree but I just have hard time to see that there would be other consequences of it.

[Hellion Rex]

This is the magister I hope to romance

 

 

ANOTHER YMIRR SPECIAL

[HuldraDancer]

As much as Dorian is growing on me that picture makes him look kind of scary. You alright there Dorian? Drink too much coffee again? You're eyes look a bit crazy there buddy go take a nap I think you need one.

[Hellion Rex]

As much as Dorian is growing on me that picture makes him look kind of scary. You alright there Dorian? Drink too much coffee again? You're eyes look a bit crazy there buddy go take a nap I think you need one.

He's had enough of these goddamn demons and this goddamn Fade Breach.

[Ailith Tycane]

As much as Dorian is growing on me that picture makes him look kind of scary. You alright there Dorian? Drink too much coffee again? You're eyes look a bit crazy there buddy go take a nap I think you need one.

 

Well when you really think about it, mages are kind of scary.

 

That's why the Circle was a thing in the first place. We don't have any examples of a mage run society that wasn't horrible for everyone else (Tevinter.)

[HuldraDancer]

Well when you really think about it, mages are kind of scary.

 

That's why the Circle was a thing in the first place. We don't have any examples of a mage run society that wasn't horrible for everyone else (Tevinter.)

When you think about it Templars are scary too

 

But I'm ehhhhhhh about the whole mage vs templar thing to be honest. Don't feel strongly one way or another both sides have good and bad points and in Kirkwall both sides are completely insane.

 

Edit:Now I'm wondering how much of it we're going to have in DAI and how many followers are going to be unmoving on where they stand about it. 

[Ailith Tycane]

When I think about it Templars seem like a reactionary measure to abominations and all the other bad things that can happen from mages. 

 

I think Bioware did a good job making this a dilemma though, because on one hand I don't like the idea of locking people away for something they have no control over, and on the other hand, I can't think of anything better than the Circle to contain the potential dangers of mages. It's not an easy choice. 

[TheodoricFriede]

 

 

I think Bioware did a good job making this a dilemma though, because on one hand I don't like the idea of locking people away for something they have no control over, and on the other hand, I can't think of anything better than the Circle to contain the potential dangers of mages. It's not an easy choice. 

I feel like it should be mandatory for mages to be a part of the circle for training until they reach a certain age and graduate.

 

After that i feel they should be given the choice to stay at the Circle, or allowed their freedom, but with the caveat that if they cause trouble, they can be found with phylacteries and killed.

 

I also think that templar teachings on how to negate magic should be less restricted. If any guard can learn some basic Magical self defense, then the fear of mages causing trouble is negated a bit.

[Maria Caliban]

I think it's interesting that BioWare has created a problem the PC can't fix and for which there is no good solution.

I find myself wondering how long it will last.