70 réponses à ce sujet

[Pasquale1234]

I guess so. Take the same quarian/geth example. If your decision results in Tali's death, members of the crew who knew her react accordingly, but they never change their opinion of Shepard. If, say, Garrus thought less of Shepard for that decision, it would've been better, no?

No. It would also change Shepard's (and mine) feelings about Garrus and his priorities. There's also a point at which loyalty tends to lock-in, and anything you do after that doesn't change their feelings about you.

If he was especially close to Tali, he might not like a pro-Geth decision. OTOH, a pragmatic Turian should be interested in whatever choice would provide the stronger military support, which would likely be the Geth. Either way, you're asking the writers to define Garrus' priorities in a way they haven't thus far. As it stands, I can see him as a neutral party who would weigh those 2 considerations equally - or I could see him as someone who would prefer one or the other. If he had a specific one-sided reaction, I could no longer do that.

[Vazgen]

 

No. It would also change Shepard's (and mine) feelings about Garrus and his priorities. There's also a point at which loyalty tends to lock-in, and anything you do after that doesn't change their feelings about you.

If he was especially close to Tali, he might not like a pro-Geth decision. OTOH, a pragmatic Turian should be interested in whatever choice would provide the stronger military support, which would likely be the Geth. Either way, you're asking the writers to define Garrus' priorities in a way they haven't thus far. As it stands, I can see him as a neutral party who would weigh those 2 considerations equally - or I could see him as someone who would prefer one or the other. If he had a specific one-sided reaction, I could no longer do that.

I was not talking about extreme disapproval. Like you said, loyalty plays a role here. I would expect Garrus to be colder in the following conversations, more professional. And that reaction will not be out of character since he is already presented as someone who cares about the people at his side (his team on Omega, comments on Mordin's death). 

I'm not asking writers to redefine Garrus's personality, this was not a conversation about changes in the original trilogy, as far as I can tell. I'm talking about new Mass Effect game with new characters, new quest and new decisions. Characters have priorities. If he's a pragmatic synthetic-hater he'll disapprove less, if he's a synthetic lover he'll approve greatly, if he's staunch anti-synthetic he'll disapprove greatly. The "disapprove/approve less" option will allow the player to smooth things over a little by choosing Renegade options in the coming dialogues, like "I did it for the war effort" but certain amount of disapproval will still linger. The "greatly approve/disapprove"  will not have such an option, all you say afterwards will not sway their opinion on the event. 

Like I said before, it all comes down to the decisions and companion writing, it can go both ways depending on those. 

[Abelas Forever!]

I want to be able to control my tone in conversations like choosing flirtatious/peaceful/aggressive tone. I also want that there should always be a neutral option in conversation so that it could be used if you don't like your peaceful or aggressive options. DA series has the humorous option in addition to peaceful and aggressive options but I would prefer the neutral option. I like the approval system but I'm not sure should it stay in DA series because it's has it's downsides. Maybe it would be better that ME series would have some other system.

[Pasquale1234]

I was not talking about extreme disapproval. Like you said, loyalty plays a role here. I would expect Garrus to be colder in the following conversations, more professional. And that reaction will not be out of character since he is already presented as someone who cares about the people at his side (his team on Omega, comments on Mordin's death).
I'm not asking writers to redefine Garrus's personality, this was not a conversation about changes in the original trilogy, as far as I can tell. I'm talking about new Mass Effect game with new characters, new quest and new decisions. Characters have priorities. If he's a pragmatic synthetic-hater he'll disapprove less, if he's a synthetic lover he'll approve greatly, if he's staunch anti-synthetic he'll disapprove greatly. The "disapprove/approve less" option will allow the player to smooth things over a little by choosing Renegade options in the coming dialogues, like "I did it for the war effort" but certain amount of disapproval will still linger. The "greatly approve/disapprove" will not have such an option, all you say afterwards will not sway their opinion on the event.
Like I said before, it all comes down to the decisions and companion writing, it can go both ways depending on those.

Obviously, a synth-hater would be teed off if you chose the Geth over the Quarians - but would s/he also be unhappy if you allowed the Geth to live by making peace between them?

When you mentioned stages, I guess I expected it might look something like this:
Adoration
Strong Affection
Like
Neutral
Dislike
Greatly dislike
Loathe

... and that any changes would be from one stage to another, not movement within a stage.

So then, the character's demeanor toward the PC would change depending on which stage they were in - right?

In order to support such a system, writers often strive to create characters that will come down on different sides of every issue or theme in story. That puts restrictions on the character creation process - and you can end up with characters like DA2's "mage freedom!" Anders and "mages are dangerous!" Fenris - both of whom tended to come across as one-note ponies rather than the nuanced characters a lot of us enjoy in Bioware games. They might also try to create some characters who will like you no matter what you do - and they come across as Mary Sues.

Having played DAO and DA2, I was somewhat relieved to find there was no affection system in ME. In fact, I quite liked the fact that in ME1, Alliance squadmates needed permission to speak freely before they would express any dissent. In a military hierarchy, that makes sense. It might not apply in the same way to non-Alliance squadmates, but they should still be expected to follow orders - though I suppose they could leave if their approval dropped too low. Anytime a character can leave (or not be recruited), there are squadmate balance issues to address.

In any case, people will try to 'game' whatever sort of affection system is implemented in order to get the outcomes they prefer. You don't seem to want to allow any way to navigate around some situations, but a lot of people wouldn't like that.

[Quarian Master Race]

If he was especially close to Tali, he might not like a pro-Geth decision. OTOH, a pragmatic Turian should be interested in whatever choice would provide the stronger military support, which would likely be the Geth. 

The quarians are worth more war assets than the geth. There is literally no non-feels based reason for siding with the robots. Nevermind his opinion of Tali, Garrus would put a bullet in you for becoming the worst war criminal in history were he a pragmatic, realistic character, as would virturally every other crewmate but EDI.

This "realistic" relationships with your crew system can't work in a game with such choices and consequences, because your entire crew should mutiny at such a logically retarded decision such as siding with the geth or any of the multiple unreasonably stupid things you can do throughout the trilogy. 

Most Shepards would end up dead, on the run from half the galaxy or in an insane asylum within the first few hours of ME1. Unless you make the squadmates completely irrelevant to the plot and allow them to be killed/ leave like in the Dragon Age games, this doesn't work for the current ME trilogy without writing an inordinate amount of throwaway characters. 

[Han Shot First]

The war asset numbers are borked, and outside of determining which ending you get they are practically meaningless. Characters like Jack or Kasumi for example, get about 1/3 the total value of the entire Alliance 5th Fleet. The Normandy with all it's upgrades is worth more than the total value of many fleets, despite being a single ship and of the weakest combat class at that. 

 

I don't think any lore-based conclusions can be drawn from the number values. 

[Quarian Master Race]

The war asset numbers are borked, and outside of determining which ending you get they are practically meaningless. Characters like Jack or Kasumi for example, get about 1/3 the total value of the entire Alliance 5th Fleet. The Normandy with all it's upgrades is worth more than the total value of many fleets, despite being a single ship and of the weakest combat class at that. 

 

I don't think any lore-based conclusions can be drawn from the number values. 

Considering that the quarian and geth war assets are mostly for fleets and ground troops and tally out to be pretty even,  and they lack most of the egregiously ridiculous calculations, a direct comparison is more apt than say, comparing Anderson to 2x the entire population of the Rachni species. We know that in a stand up fight, quarians> non-reaperized geth and reaperized geth> quarians, so it is reasonable to assume that the numbers would be similar given the quarians supposedly more flexible and refined tactical approach making up for lower numbers when talking in terms of asymmetric warfare, such as that being conducted against the Reapers, where geth superiority in brute force would be rendered relatively less important than in the Rannoch conflict.

Anyway, it is merely an example to make a point. Realistic companions and the power-fantasy are mutually exclusive.

[Vazgen]

Obviously, a synth-hater would be teed off if you chose the Geth over the Quarians - but would s/he also be unhappy if you allowed the Geth to live by making peace between them?

Javik seems to be a perfect example of such a character. He certainly disapproves siding with the geth and expresses doubts in peace.

 

When you mentioned stages, I guess I expected it might look something like this:
Adoration
Strong Affection
Like
Neutral
Dislike
Greatly dislike
Loathe

... and that any changes would be from one stage to another, not movement within a stage.

So then, the character's demeanor toward the PC would change depending on which stage they were in - right?

 

In order to support such a system, writers often strive to create characters that will come down on different sides of every issue or theme in story. That puts restrictions on the character creation process - and you can end up with characters like DA2's "mage freedom!" Anders and "mages are dangerous!" Fenris - both of whom tended to come across as one-note ponies rather than the nuanced characters a lot of us enjoy in Bioware games. They might also try to create some characters who will like you no matter what you do - and they come across as Mary Sues.

Mostly true, although movement within the stage will also be possible. So basically like experience. Say, the difference between Like and Strong Affection is 100 approval. Then you have a situation like, say geth/quarian conflict. If the squadmate is a quarian (or simply has very strong feelings about the issue) he/she gets 120 approval if you choose quarians. In this particular case he/she will also lose, like 500 approval and you will not be able to raise his/her approval higher than Neutral in the rest of the game. You will be able to get small number of approval points through different actions, dialogue options unrelated to the main quest. A connection to the themes will not be required, since you can simply put a certain multiplier for neutral characters so they get lower amount of points from major choices but higher amount from minor choices. 

 

Having played DAO and DA2, I was somewhat relieved to find there was no affection system in ME. In fact, I quite liked the fact that in ME1, Alliance squadmates needed permission to speak freely before they would express any dissent. In a military hierarchy, that makes sense. It might not apply in the same way to non-Alliance squadmates, but they should still be expected to follow orders - though I suppose they could leave if their approval dropped too low. Anytime a character can leave (or not be recruited), there are squadmate balance issues to address.

In any case, people will try to 'game' whatever sort of affection system is implemented in order to get the outcomes they prefer. You don't seem to want to allow any way to navigate around some situations, but a lot of people wouldn't like that.

Some squadmates can leave in Dragon Age Inquisition, no? And the game doesn't have that many of them. 

[Massa FX]

One thing I like about a full support crew/cast is Shepard speeches are much better when there's more people listening and interacting (head nods, clenching fists etc...) during her rallying. 

 

Someone mentioned love scenes/sex. I agree, more casual affection and meaningful conversations would be ideal. I'm in favor of keeping sex in the games, but make it less awkward. ME3's hetero love scenes were just... <rolling eyes> so unnatural. Especially Garrus. His armor got in the way. 

 

Pasquale1234 has a point. Fewer squadmates means less possible LI's. I'm in favor of more options especially the hetero female kinds. 

[Abelas Forever!]

One thing I like about a full support crew/cast is Shepard speeches are much better when there's more people listening and interacting (head nods, clenching fists etc...) during her rallying. 

 

Someone mentioned love scenes/sex. I agree, more casual affection and meaningful conversations would be ideal. I'm in favor of keeping sex in the games, but make it less awkward. ME3's hetero love scenes were just... <rolling eyes> so unnatural. Especially Garrus. His armor got in the way. 

 

Pasquale1234 has a point. Fewer squadmates means less possible LI's. I'm in favor of more options especially the hetero female kinds. 

I loved the Garrus romance and I don't remember that the love scenes were unnatural I guess the whole romance was a little bit awkward in a good way. I had more problems with Thane romance in ME3 because I couldn't support him and my Shepard acted like she didn't understand his condition while I think she should have or at least there should have been an option to show that she understood his condition.

 

I love romances and I'm always romancing somebody in my playthroughs but I don't mind if there is a small crew and that way probably less LIs. I'm fine if there is at least two LIs to choose from. I did't like ME3 and how they treated the female only LIs such as Jakob and Thane. I just don't want to see that again.

[Pasquale1234]

The quarians are worth more war assets than the geth.

That depends on other choices you've made in the course of your playthrough. I'm about to head to Cronos Station, and my current tally is: Geth - 815, Quarians - 490
 

Javik seems to be a perfect example of such a character. He certainly disapproves siding with the geth and expresses doubts in peace.

But in an approval system, the writers would have to assign approval / disapproval to each of those choices for every character.
 

Mostly true, although movement within the stage will also be possible.

Then I guess I don't see much reason for the stages.
 

Some squadmates can leave in Dragon Age Inquisition, no? And the game doesn't have that many of them.

Wrex can be killed on Virmire; Tali can die over the Rannoch decision.

A genophage cure would be / should be Wrex's #1 issue / sticking point. The sort of system you seem to prefer would require Shepard to either keep the genophage cure on Virmire or lose Wrex. I'd rather be able to reason with him. Another option for the writers would be to not have a genophage cure on Virmire, as that would relieve them of having to deal with the fallout.

I can do without having a steady stream of approval / disapproval notifications while I'm gaming. And I guess I'd prefer the writers, VAs, programmers, QA, etc. invest their bandwidth in other aspects of the game - the follower approval systems don't add much value for me.

What would add a lot of value for me is friendship paths with potential LIs. Shepard rarely talks to Kaidan in ME1 for fear of triggering the romance path. She can't have a friendly chat with Jacob without going into flirt mode - and it seems to be the same way with Traynor. I'd like to be able to choose when my character flirts and with whom, and have other conversation arcs available with LI candidates even when the romance is not in play. Garrus is a great example; Shepard is able to have a BFF relationship with him without ever tripping over romance content.

[Quarian Master Race]

That depends on other choices you've made in the course of your playthrough. I'm about to head to Cronos Station, and my current tally is: Geth - 815, Quarians - 490
 

OT, but the fact that you made incorrect/ non optimal decisions is irrelevant to the point made (which you omitted). I can sabotage with Wrex in charge and have zero krogan war assets but that doesn't mean the salarians are worth more or justify said decision from a logical standpoint in any way.

[Vazgen]

But in an approval system, the writers would have to assign approval / disapproval to each of those choices for every character.

Yes. It's not as hard as you think. Each squadmate gets two variables - approval and disapproval. When the choice is picked a certain number is added to the appropriate variable. Similarly to ME1 Paragon/Renegade system for Shepard.

 

Then I guess I don't see much reason for the stages.

Stages act as indicators for character's relationship with the player. They will be more reserved if they don't really trust you and be more open if they do. For example, a character in a neutral stage will not tell you about his upbringing but will act respectfully. A character in a Dislike stage will address the player accordingly. 

 

Wrex can be killed on Virmire; Tali can die over the Rannoch decision.

And a lot of squadmates can die on SM. What's your point?

 

A genophage cure would be / should be Wrex's #1 issue / sticking point. The sort of system you seem to prefer would require Shepard to either keep the genophage cure on Virmire or lose Wrex. I'd rather be able to reason with him. Another option for the writers would be to not have a genophage cure on Virmire, as that would relieve them of having to deal with the fallout.

You go to the extreme. That one issue should not cause him to leave, unless, like you said, he is written the way that he will not accept other decisions. In my suggestion, you'll lose, say 120 approval and Wrex will not be best buddies with you. Usually you'll have to have a squadmate disapprove of your actions throughout a good portion of the game to make them leave. 

Check this out, for example. He still doesn't leave after this

 

 

I can do without having a steady stream of approval / disapproval notifications while I'm gaming. And I guess I'd prefer the writers, VAs, programmers, QA, etc. invest their bandwidth in other aspects of the game - the follower approval systems don't add much value for me.

We're on the same page here. Personally I would've removed the notifications entirely, both for current Paragon/Renegade and for approval. Some out-of-the-universe way to check out the approval gains/losses for each squadmate (like a new tab in the codex) can be implemented for people who like to know the exact numbers.

 

What would add a lot of value for me is friendship paths with potential LIs. Shepard rarely talks to Kaidan in ME1 for fear of triggering the romance path. She can't have a friendly chat with Jacob without going into flirt mode - and it seems to be the same way with Traynor. I'd like to be able to choose when my character flirts and with whom, and have other conversation arcs available with LI candidates even when the romance is not in play. Garrus is a great example; Shepard is able to have a BFF relationship with him without ever tripping over romance content.

 

Currently Shepard is idolized by all his squadmates. Liara, Joker and Garrus are forced as best buddies, Anderson as some sort of a father figure... Shepard is always glad to see squadmates and worried about their health (Jacob mission, for example). I don't think it's good. 

Regarding romance options, Inquisition seems pretty clear on that with unique icon for amorous lines and a binary choice to pursue relationship or not. I never had a problem of locking in an unwanted romance in Mass Effect either. Maybe it's easier for Male Shepard, don't know.

[Pasquale1234]

Yes. It's not as hard as you think. Each squadmate gets two variables - approval and disapproval. When the choice is picked a certain number is added to the appropriate variable. Similarly to ME1 Paragon/Renegade system for Shepard.

It's not nearly as easy as you think. They have to decide how each character would react to each decision - many of which are very gray - figure out how each one would be weighted, and make sure every character has plenty of opportunities to earn enough points to achieve every supported stage. That's just the design - it does not include development or testing to make sure it works as designed.

A lot of people complained about getting rivalry points for turning down Anders' early flirt attempt in DA2 - even though there were more than enough friendship points available to make up for it. It's incumbent on the developers to make sure the player can still reach relationship point x even if they make certain choices in some areas.
 

Stages act as indicators for character's relationship with the player. They will be more reserved if they don't really trust you and be more open if they do. For example, a character in a neutral stage will not tell you about his upbringing but will act respectfully. A character in a Dislike stage will address the player accordingly.

They sort of do some of that, anyway. Aria won't talk to Shepard about her past until Shepard gives her the datapad retrieved on the Archangel recruitment mission.

But it sounds like they'd need to write, record, program, test different dialogue lines for some of the interactions for each relationship stage. I'd rather they spend more of the word budget on conversations between squaddies - that was one thing I really like about ME3. James & Garrus having a bragfest, walking in on intercom convos, the guards stationed outside the warroom conversing, lots of conversations to overhear around the Citadel.
 

And a lot of squadmates can die on SM. What's your point?

I thought those cases were pertinent to a discussion about losing squadmates over ideological differences.
 

You go to the extreme. That one issue should not cause him to leave, unless, like you said, he is written the way that he will not accept other decisions. In my suggestion, you'll lose, say 120 approval and Wrex will not be best buddies with you. Usually you'll have to have a squadmate disapprove of your actions throughout a good portion of the game to make them leave.

Some characters have *that one issue* for which there is no compromise. In DAO, Wynne & Leliana will attack a Warden who defiles the sacred ashes, and you must fight them to the death (There are some conditions where you can avoid it.) I'd be pretty surprised if a genophage cure was not that one issue for Wrex.
 

Currently Shepard is idolized by all his squadmates. Liara, Joker and Garrus are forced as best buddies, Anderson as some sort of a father figure... Shepard is always glad to see squadmates and worried about their health (Jacob mission, for example). I don't think it's good.

I'd agree those things are problems - but I'm not sure that an approval / disapproval system would fix it. Shepard was really Bioware's character (rather than the player's) from the beginning, though it became more apparent in each game. Some of the character relationship issues in ME1-3 were unique to the trilogy format. I mean, Alistair was the Warden's best buddy and King candidate in DAO, but I could mostly ignore him.
 

Regarding romance options, Inquisition seems pretty clear on that with unique icon for amorous lines and a binary choice to pursue relationship or not. I never had a problem of locking in an unwanted romance in Mass Effect either. Maybe it's easier for Male Shepard, don't know.

DA2 did that, too, with icons on the wheel.

I don't think lock-ins are an issue so much as flirting. It's pretty easy to inadvertently flirt with some of the characters, when all you really wanted to do was investigate friendly dialogue with them.

[Vargeisa]

Ideally I would like relationships to work like the one between Lee and Kenny in The Walking Dead S1.

But I can only imagine how much work it would take to pull something like that off correctly and for the entire crew.

[Vazgen]

It's not nearly as easy as you think. They have to decide how each character would react to each decision - many of which are very gray - figure out how each one would be weighted, and make sure every character has plenty of opportunities to earn enough points to achieve every supported stage. That's just the design - it does not include development or testing to make sure it works as designed.

A lot of people complained about getting rivalry points for turning down Anders' early flirt attempt in DA2 - even though there were more than enough friendship points available to make up for it. It's incumbent on the developers to make sure the player can still reach relationship point x even if they make certain choices in some areas.

What you say is already done by the writers when they write dialogue lines for responses. Take Javik, for example. He already has different reactions written for geth/quarian conflict. All I ask is to add a number to some variable when the game sets the flag which triggers the appropriate line. It can even be done at the end of the project, when all the lines are already present so they can just use math to figure out the numbers needed. A boring work, true. 

 

They sort of do some of that, anyway. Aria won't talk to Shepard about her past until Shepard gives her the datapad retrieved on the Archangel recruitment mission.

But it sounds like they'd need to write, record, program, test different dialogue lines for some of the interactions for each relationship stage. I'd rather they spend more of the word budget on conversations between squaddies - that was one thing I really like about ME3. James & Garrus having a bragfest, walking in on intercom convos, the guards stationed outside the warroom conversing, lots of conversations to overhear around the Citadel.

No, they can do it the same way they did in ME3. Squadmates get certain new dialogue lines depending on a stage of the main quest, or a certain event. They write the character normally and then lock out certain dialogue options with approval stages. The only thing that needs to be added extra is different greeting and goodbye based on the approval stage. That's quite superficial but requires little work and will certainly show the character's disposition towards the player.

 

I thought those cases were pertinent to a discussion about losing squadmates over ideological differences.

I don't think they are related. Squadmates leaving should be the worst case of the relationship and require time, while you can kill off any character with a few simple steps.

 

Some characters have *that one issue* for which there is no compromise. In DAO, Wynne & Leliana will attack a Warden who defiles the sacred ashes, and you must fight them to the death (There are some conditions where you can avoid it.) I'd be pretty surprised if a genophage cure was not that one issue for Wrex.

Saren's genophage cure is not a true cure, as Shepard presents it to Wrex. So there is a room for acceptance here.

The point I was making about Wrex example is that it is based on the character writing. Having Wreav instead of Wrex on Virmire would've led you to killing him, because he would not have accepted your decision. That doesn't make him a lesser character.

 

I'd agree those things are problems - but I'm not sure that an approval / disapproval system would fix it. Shepard was really Bioware's character (rather than the player's) from the beginning, though it became more apparent in each game. Some of the character relationship issues in ME1-3 were unique to the trilogy format. I mean, Alistair was the Warden's best buddy and King candidate in DAO, but I could mostly ignore him.

It would make the characters more responsive of Shepard's actions and it in-turn will create an illusion of having more control over the character IMO.

 

I don't think lock-ins are an issue so much as flirting. It's pretty easy to inadvertently flirt with some of the characters, when all you really wanted to do was investigate friendly dialogue with them.

I recall three such issues - Tali in ME2 when she expresses interest in you quite bluntly, Liara in ME3 - on Mars when male Shepard's voice is like meeting a long lost love interest and during Priority: Earth when she wants to meld minds. I found that rather inappropriate.

[Pasquale1234]

What you say is already done by the writers when they write dialogue lines for responses. Take Javik, for example. He already has different reactions written for geth/quarian conflict. All I ask is to add a number to some variable when the game sets the flag which triggers the appropriate line. It can even be done at the end of the project, when all the lines are already present so they can just use math to figure out the numbers needed. A boring work, true.

Since they already have dialogue appropriate to the circumstances, what would these new numbers accomplish?
 

I don't think they are related. Squadmates leaving should be the worst case of the relationship and require time, while you can kill off any character with a few simple steps.

Other ways to kill off characters - like the ME2 SM - is not the issue. The topic here is relationships with characters, approval / disapproval of the PC's actions, and it has been mentioned that they can leave if the approval is low enough. The PC's choices impact approval, and Wrex and / or Tali can end up dead as a direct result of the PC's non-combat choices. If there were an affinity system in place, both of those deaths could have resulted from huge approval hits for those decisions, instead of the way they played out.
 

I recall three such issues - Tali in ME2 when she expresses interest in you quite bluntly, Liara in ME3 - on Mars when male Shepard's voice is like meeting a long lost love interest and during Priority: Earth when she wants to meld minds. I found that rather inappropriate.

Should followers not express affection for the PC?

The Mars greeting should have been based on an imported romance flag. Ditto the Illium greeting in ME2.

Instead of a full-bore point accumulation affinity system, how about they base content on 4 romance flag states - n/a, rejected, flirting, locked-in? It would be a lot simpler than a full-on affinity system, and might resolve some of the more egregious issues.

[Vazgen]

Since they already have dialogue appropriate to the circumstances, what would these new numbers accomplish?

I feel like we're going in circles. These numbers add to the approval/disapproval rating of the character. They will play in the decision of locking/unlocking dialogue options when talking to him and his greeting/goodbye (it's quite shallow, but adding more will require more work).

 

Other ways to kill off characters - like the ME2 SM - is not the issue. The topic here is relationships with characters, approval / disapproval of the PC's actions, and it has been mentioned that they can leave if the approval is low enough. The PC's choices impact approval, and Wrex and / or Tali can end up dead as a direct result of the PC's non-combat choices. If there were an affinity system in place, both of those deaths could have resulted from huge approval hits for those decisions, instead of the way they played out.

People end up dead in Suicide Mission due to PC's non-combat choices. Fire team leader, vent specialist etc. are just one side of the coin. The other is failing to acquire loyalty of a squadmate through not doing loyalty mission, failing it (Samara, Thane, Tali, Zaeed), not resolving "catfight" scenarios (Miranda & Jack, Tali & Legion), not upgrading the ship. And approval system should not replace script, but rather work alongside it. So if the writers decide that Tali's suicide is the only way she can react to the flotilla destruction, it should happen regardless of how much approval you have with her.

 

Should followers not express affection for the PC?

The Mars greeting should have been based on an imported romance flag. Ditto the Illium greeting in ME2.

Instead of a full-bore point accumulation affinity system, how about they base content on 4 romance flag states - n/a, rejected, flirting, locked-in? It would be a lot simpler than a full-on affinity system, and might resolve some of the more egregious issues.

IIRC, Tali's line expressed clear romantic interest which came out of nowhere, really. I can be wrong, been quite some time since I played ME2.

Mars greeting might be a bug, similar to STEEEVEE! during Priority:Earth when only the line for romanced Cortez and his death is played.

So if you have a character with n/a flag, all content should be available? 

[themikefest]

If they put in a point system for squadmates and main character, I want that system to take in account the actions or a lack of action from the squadmate during a mission. 

[Pasquale1234]

IIRC, Tali's line expressed clear romantic interest which came out of nowhere, really. I can be wrong, been quite some time since I played ME2.

It happens sometimes irl, too.
 

Mars greeting might be a bug, similar to STEEEVEE! during Priority:Earth when only the line for romanced Cortez and his death is played.
So if you have a character with n/a flag, all content should be available?

The cases you mentioned had to do with romance content, so that's where I went.

I would say the more intimate content would be restricted to flirting or locked-in romance.

Something like the mind-meld offer *might* be made for any state other than rejected. As described, it's a thing not only for bondmates, but also close friends or as a way to say farewell.

Rejected would be cool, neutral, stand-offish, maybe jealous, depending on the character's personality.

N/A would be active in a couple of situations:
- The companion is not a valid LI for the PC.
- It's too early in the game for there to have been any romantic dialogue.

... and in that case, the approach could be friendly, cool, reserved - depending on the character's overall personality.