54 réponses à ce sujet

[veeia]

There really wasn't approval with them, was there? They just went along with you, disagreed/got passive aggressive if you did something they didn't like, and then mostly acted like you were best friends again later. That was pretty easy to do because your companions were mostly under your direct command (Ash, Kaidan, Vega, Jacob), or basically looked up to you like a do-nothing wrong hero (Liara, Garrus, Tali, Samara).

 

Of course with Wrex, Miranda/Jack, and Legion/Tali, you had real issues, but that was more to do with paragon/renegade, not companion approval really.  

[Jurus]

I just hope DA:I approval is nothing like any of the ME approval. I had a hard time understanding where I stood with members of my squad. It all felt very vague and I'm pretty certain I missed out on a lot of content with a variety of squadmates. :/

 

ME didn't have approval. You just had to talk to them after every main story mission and get to know them.

[Grieving Natashina]

Ahhhhh. See, I need things in the game to remind me. Otherwise I will forget. 

Just wanted to say that your avatar is really damned cute.  

[Grieving Natashina]

lol thanks! I saw it online - this mom improvised all her daughter's favorite things for a Halloween costume. What a good mom!

That's a cute link.  

 

I always actually familiar with the pic.  My husband is a redditor.  

[veeia]

I have seen some Princess Darth Vaders at cons before. Kids cosplaying.  

[Grieving Natashina]

haha! same for mine!

Nice!  It can get...adventurous sometimes, but that's why I stick to viewing reddit vicariously through my husband.  He's good at filtering out the really horrific stuff.

 

Apologizes for the off-topic folks.  

[Otter-under-the-mountain]

I found that DA II friendship/rivalry was a lot more forgiving and a lot easier to anticipate that DA: O. Though that may have something to do with the fact that with my typical party (Sten, Morrigan, and Leliana), I was more or less guaranteed to anger someone no matter what I did. In DA II I typically went with Varric, Anders, and Merril, who never really conflict and all roughly match up to the philosophy I was trying to play.

[RevilFox]

That's a cute link.  

 

I always actually familiar with the pic.  My husband is a redditor.  

This is way off topic, but I've been on the internet since the mid to late 90's, and I have never once been to Reddit. I'm oddly proud of that fact.

[veeia]

I found that DA II friendship/rivalry was a lot more forgiving and a lot easier to anticipate that DA: O. Though that may have something to do with the fact that with my typical party (Sten, Morrigan, and Leliana), I was more or less guaranteed to anger someone no matter what I did. In DA II I typically went with Varric, Anders, and Merril, who never really conflict and all roughly match up to the philosophy I was trying to play.

 

My party was mostly Fenris, Isabela, and Anders, and I played a pro-mage, anti-slavery sarcastic Hawke who didn't take things seriously but really loved getting in people's business. So my approval was all over the place and it was really difficult to get them maxed out (in either direction) without preplanning.

[Fast Jimmy]

This is way off topic, but I've been on the internet since the mid to late 90's, and I have never once been to Reddit. I'm oddly proud of that fact.

Eh. Reddit has more interesting and informative sections than Facebook or Twitter, for sure.

[Grieving Natashina]

Eh. Reddit has more interesting and informative sections than Facebook or Twitter, for sure.

I always get a kick out of redditors that pop onto a thread that turn out to be actual experts in whatever field is related to the topic.  I've honestly learned some really cool stuff thanks to reddit.  

[Fast Jimmy]

I always get a kick out of redditors that pop onto a thread that turn out to be actual experts in whatever field is related to the topic. I've honestly learned some really cool stuff thanks to reddit.

Yeah, AMAs are amazingly insightful in more cases than I would have suspected.

[Grieving Natashina]

Yeah, AMAs are amazingly insightful in more cases than I would have suspected.

Indeed!

[RevilFox]

Eh. Reddit has more interesting and informative sections than Facebook or Twitter, for sure.

To be fair, I don't have anything against Reddit. I'm just always amused that I've been "around" for this long and never actually gone there. At this point, it's kind of a thing and I don't want to break my streak. 

[TinySquid]

There has got to be a better way than this. I know its far too late for Inquisition; so I'm just bitching for the future of RPG's. 

 

Seriously though; the Origins system absolutely sucked. I stated on another thread that I plan to suck up to my people in Inquisition to gain their approval. The difference between that and Origins is that the Inquisitor is by his very nature a politician; it makes sense for the greater good. So would the people putting up with you if they dislike you; but it seems the people who wanted Origins 2.0 won that one. A big problem I had with the 1st game was by maxing out the approval it often led to finishing up everything a character had to say with an entire 1/4th of the game left. I can't tell you how frustrating it was to have so much left to do with a "dead" party.

 

DA2 at least fixed that part with the Act and quest-tying structure. I know that doesn't translate to Inquisition but it was refreshing to have a sense of real time progression concerning character development. DA2's rivalry path was engaging and unique. It finally felt somewhat dynamic to be able to continue relationships without kissing everyone's behind. However, I must agree that there was a serious problem with getting stuck halfway between the two ends. I found it predictable who would approve of what; but the differences forced me to either choose my party based upon who would agree/disagree with me and not the requirements of the mission; or do multiple playthroughs to maintain immersion.

 

So like I said, there has to be a better way going about this in the future. I hate that Inquisition reverts back to where if you aren't kissing butt you lose out on content. Perhaps bring back the rivalry system but with completely different content instead of different words for the same missions? I don't have any answers to this, but the approval system is inherently broken and needs to be redesigned.

[veeia]

We don't know for sure it has the flaws of DA:O, though. We do know it has extra conversations for negative approval, so you do get content for that.

We will also be getting plot specific conversations throughout the game, so even if you max out approval convos (which I can't tell if they are gated by plot yet...we really can't tell yet, but Gaider's post made me think they might actually be) you have more to talk about with them.

I also don't think we know enough about the nature of approval to say that high approval = kissing ass. Maybe its possible to be rude to someone but also get approval through our actions.

I share your concerns, yes, but I am waiting to see how it works out to think its a regression.

[Gothfather]

There has got to be a better way than this. I know its far too late for Inquisition; so I'm just bitching for the future of RPG's. 

 

Seriously though; the Origins system absolutely sucked. I stated on another thread that I plan to suck up to my people in Inquisition to gain their approval. The difference between that and Origins is that the Inquisitor is by his very nature a politician; it makes sense for the greater good. So would the people putting up with you if they dislike you; but it seems the people who wanted Origins 2.0 won that one. A big problem I had with the 1st game was by maxing out the approval it often led to finishing up everything a character had to say with an entire 1/4th of the game left. I can't tell you how frustrating it was to have so much left to do with a "dead" party.

 

DA2 at least fixed that part with the Act and quest-tying structure. I know that doesn't translate to Inquisition but it was refreshing to have a sense of real time progression concerning character development. DA2's rivalry path was engaging and unique. It finally felt somewhat dynamic to be able to continue relationships without kissing everyone's behind. However, I must agree that there was a serious problem with getting stuck halfway between the two ends. I found it predictable who would approve of what; but the differences forced me to either choose my party based upon who would agree/disagree with me and not the requirements of the mission; or do multiple playthroughs to maintain immersion.

 

So like I said, there has to be a better way going about this in the future. I hate that Inquisition reverts back to where if you aren't kissing butt you lose out on content. Perhaps bring back the rivalry system but with completely different content instead of different words for the same missions? I don't have any answers to this, but the approval system is inherently broken and needs to be redesigned.

Here is a link that I think will ease your fears.

 

http://www.makinggam...mbers,6845.html

 

Its by David Gaider himself so its not speculation, It shows that about 1/2 the conversations are plot gated and 1/2 are tied to relations both good and bad. So as you progress through the main plot of the game your companions will have more to say even if you have max approval.

[10K]

I think what BW should have done is separate friendship and approval. Just because someone disapprove what you have done doesn't mean they'll stop being your friend. Friendship should be determined by how you treat that character in general. I understand how someone may view your decisions could potentially effect friendship, but it only should effect it slightly. But let's say companions keep disapproving what the PC does as time goes by. Then this is when friendship should be effected more and more by disapproval. Then after both friendship and disapproval meters are down that is when the companions should leave or even turn on the PC.

 

This is how I think the system should work. By relying on two meters I think it would feel more fair and realistic. Plus by hiding the meters as they are doing now it would feel even more natural.    

[boissiere]

There has got to be a better way than this. I know its far too late for Inquisition; so I'm just bitching for the future of RPG's. 

 

Seriously though; the Origins system absolutely sucked. I stated on another thread that I plan to suck up to my people in Inquisition to gain their approval. The difference between that and Origins is that the Inquisitor is by his very nature a politician; it makes sense for the greater good. So would the people putting up with you if they dislike you; but it seems the people who wanted Origins 2.0 won that one. A big problem I had with the 1st game was by maxing out the approval it often led to finishing up everything a character had to say with an entire 1/4th of the game left. I can't tell you how frustrating it was to have so much left to do with a "dead" party.

 

DA2 at least fixed that part with the Act and quest-tying structure. I know that doesn't translate to Inquisition but it was refreshing to have a sense of real time progression concerning character development. DA2's rivalry path was engaging and unique. It finally felt somewhat dynamic to be able to continue relationships without kissing everyone's behind. However, I must agree that there was a serious problem with getting stuck halfway between the two ends. I found it predictable who would approve of what; but the differences forced me to either choose my party based upon who would agree/disagree with me and not the requirements of the mission; or do multiple playthroughs to maintain immersion.

 

So like I said, there has to be a better way going about this in the future. I hate that Inquisition reverts back to where if you aren't kissing butt you lose out on content. Perhaps bring back the rivalry system but with completely different content instead of different words for the same missions? I don't have any answers to this, but the approval system is inherently broken and needs to be redesigned.

I generally don't choose my teamates according to what I'll do. I begin playing with character I like then check for other at max approval or something like that. For example, when I don't play warrior in DA II, I always take Aveline as my main tank because of the 2% improve xp from the Orlais Lion shield. There are some quests, I have no other option to take this specific companion but still. There was one only exception. In DA II, in order to unlock two different scenes, you had to take Fenris at 2 locations : the gallows and outside Kirkwall (in Act 2) to unlock his companion quest.

 

I think what BW should have done is separate friendship and approval. Just because someone disapprove what you have done doesn't mean they'll stop being your friend. Friendship should be determined by how you treat that character in general. I understand how someone may view your decisions could potentially effect friendship, but it only should effect it slightly. But let's say companions keep disapproving what the PC does as time goes by. Then this is when friendship should be effected more and more by disapproval. Then after both friendship and disapproval meters are down that is when the companions should leave or even turn on the PC.

 

This is how I think the system should work. By relying on two meters I think it would feel more fair and realistic. Plus by hiding the meters as they are doing now it would feel even more natural.    

I would say that it would have been extremely difficult and rarely meaningful to do especially because friendship generally comes with approval and when you do something that your friend doesn't approve, it quickly leads to a clash.

[10K]

I would say that it would have been extremely difficult and rarely meaningful to do especially because friendship generally comes with approval and when you do something that your friend doesn't approve, it quickly leads to a clash.

Friendship doesn't generally come because of approval. Friendship comes by how you interact and treat someone; the more time you spend with that individual. If a friend disproves with something you do, sure it should effect your friendship slightly as I stated in my OP. But overall it would turn into a disagreement not an all out clash with one another. As I said in my OP, as a companion continues to disagree with you then that's when friendship should start being effect more by disapproval. But overall friendship should mostly rely on how you interact with that companion.  

[JWvonGoethe]

There was nothing wrong with the rivalry/approval system in theory, but the way it was implemented was confusing and unintuitive.

For example, in order to kill Merrill (disclaimer: I like her), you have to skip her final quest in Act 3. Fair enough, if a little specific. But that's not all, since you also have to complete all of the following requirements: have Anders at 100% friendship or rivalry; agree to help Anders with his Chantry plan in Act 3 and then complete all of Anders' Act 3 missions. There is no clear reason as to why Merrill's fate is dependent on Hawke's relationship with Anders. Neither does it make sense that Merrill's approval status doesn't matter when it comes to getting the option to kill her, but for some reason Anders' approval status does matter.

Inquisition's system seems like a big improvement, but I'm still wary that we may again have to fulfill a load of obtuse, seemingly unrelated requirements in order to make some of the more interesting decisions.

[Alan Drifter13]

My party was mostly Fenris, Isabela, and Anders, and I played a pro-mage, anti-slavery sarcastic Hawke who didn't take things seriously but really loved getting in people's business. So my approval was all over the place and it was really difficult to get them maxed out (in either direction) without preplanning.

 

This made me laugh

 

I understand the issue you had in your story, though my experience was really different.

 

In my last DA2 game-play I was a mage, and my companions were usually Anders, Isabella and Aveline (though I brought Varric and Fenris every now and then, for a change). It wasn't so hard in this case to be friend with both Aveline and Isabella, even though a few decisions provided opposite reactions from them. It also wasn't hard to be rival with Merrill this time, because though I supported mages, I disapproved her use of blood magic. The thing is, even though your general decisions can create reactions you don't want for your rivalry/friendship goal, the personal dialogs with each character (and the lines you say when giving a gift, which is not an automated approval bonus anymore), and especially their companion missions, usually have a much higher bonus in the direction you want. So I didn't find it so hard to be rival or friend with whoever I wanted, while maintaining my character's decisions consistent.

 

On the contrary, in DA:O I couldn't make my character's decisions consistent with being friend with everyone...

 

[spoiler ALERT: ABOUT THE FINAL PART OF DA:O]

 

...When I decided to kick Alistair and keep Loghain, my decision really didn't make sense for a character that had been so nice to Alistair during the previous months. The thing is, as a character I wanted to hate him, but as a player I wanted a good tank with a good combat bonus. I understand the rivalry system in DA2 wasn't perfect and penalized neutral decisions (just like every dual morality/approval system in video games does, the only solution to this is a non-dual system, which I guess would be much harder to develop) but in my personal experience it didn't cause such flagrant contradictions as the DA:O system.

 

But I might have a different opinion if my DA:O character had been a tank warrior instead of a dual-weapon rogue