90 réponses à ce sujet

[Wulfram]

I think the main problem with Friendship/Rivalry wasn't lack of understanding among the players, but among the writers.  Every time friendship was used as approval and rivalry as disapproval, it undermines the system.  Not just because it associates "rivalry" with "bad", but because it can make it hard to follow the rivalry path to the end if your character doesn't consistently act like a jerk.

 

Also, you could be "Blood Magic bad!" every time came up and still be at full friendship with Merrill.  Partly because of the tendency to mix approval with friendship, partly because Merrill's writer apparently wanted to elide blood magic and the mirror, which causes problems if your character doesn't equate the two.

[andy6915]

I think the main problem with Friendship/Rivalry wasn't lack of understanding among the players, but among the writers.  Every time friendship was used as approval and rivalry as disapproval, it undermines the system.  Not just because it associates "rivalry" with "bad", but because it can make it hard to follow the rivalry path to the end if your character doesn't consistently act like a jerk.

 

Also, you could be "Blood Magic bad!" every time came up and still be at full friendship with Merrill.  Partly because of the tendency to mix approval with friendship, partly because Merrill's writer apparently wanted to elide blood magic and the mirror, which causes problems if your character doesn't equate the two.

 

Nobody said it was perfect. That's the thing though, if they had kept it they could have refined it to being even better. But Bioware does tend to use the "throw it out" choice for things that didn't work quite right instead of the "keep it and improve it" choice.

[Ieldra]

About the friendship/rivalry system:

I didn't like it because it encouraged you to game the system regardless of what came naturally to you, because specific relationship events only happened with high friendship/rivalry. I would've preferred it if those relationship events were tied to specific choices you make regarding a character, or how you spoke to them at one or two key points, rather than how you accumulated points on a scale.

For instance, Merrill: accepting, for the sake of the argument, the questionable tie between the mirror and blood magic, her decision to destroy the mirror at the end should've be tied to what you said about blood magic and its dangers specifically, rather than how far you were along on the rivalry path in general.

So, yes, I think doing away with it was for the best. There are a few specific choices characters reacted to in later conversions in DAI, and as limited as it was, I liked that quite a bit.

[Dieb]

I think the main problem with Friendship/Rivalry wasn't lack of understanding among the players, but among the writers.  Every time friendship was used as approval and rivalry as disapproval, it undermines the system.  Not just because it associates "rivalry" with "bad", but because it can make it hard to follow the rivalry path to the end if your character doesn't consistently act like a jerk.

 

Without meaning to sound condescending, but I'm inclined to believe the understanding is still lacking on your part. Or rather, I believe you are demanding/expecting it to be a direct replacement for the approval system functionally, which it is not, and are thus disappointed.

 

1) Not disagreeing with someone for a change, or disagreeing with a friend does earn you their occasional opposite inclination.

 

2) When it comes to gameplay and content: There is an option for each character's story which is sort of a breaking point, which will earn you almost maximum Rilvary and will constantly be referred to.

For example, if you decide to not give Merril the artifact. That is not acting like a jerk, that is taking a stand on your point. Also, if we're honest, those answers in which you would be simply acting like a jerk, a quite rare and seldomly highly "rewarded". Most characters only respond with approval at all when it comes to something that questions their beliefs.

 

At least this exemplifies why they did away with it, I suppose.

 

I didn't like it because it encouraged you to game the system regardless of what came naturally to you, because specific relationship events only happened with high friendship/rivalry. I would've preferred it if those relationship events were tied to specific choices you make regarding a character, or how you spoke to them at one or two key points, rather than how you accumulated points on a scale.

 

Iz is purely subjective, but that's actually what liked about it. If you don't interact with someone, they end up -genuinely- not caring about you. That's what not having high scores in any direction illustrated, and I think this hasn't been done for too long.

 

Choosing the right answer in certain situations is strange, because why would I even share anything personal with you, or confront you about something, if clearly we don't give a rat's behind about one another?

[AlanC9]

Iz is purely subjective, but that's actually what liked about it. If you don't interact with someone, they end up -genuinely- not caring about you. That's what not having high scores in any direction illustrated, and I think this hasn't been done for too long.

I don't follow this. You can interact with an NPC as much as the game permits you to and still end up with a middling score, depending on the responses you pick.

[Capone666]

This is a very interesting interview. Personally I very much appreciate this kind of backstage view, because it illustrates the reasons for certain things that felt inconclusive or just plain wrong at the time. The parts of the game affected by the cuts, or those affected by the rush, can't be improved retroactively, but knowing the reasons we can put it behind us. It's sad to hear some of this, but that's better than if we keep thinking "What the hell were they thinking when they did this"?

I wish there was such an interview about ME3.

I actually did that same thing, with the writer of the Mass Effect Franchise: 

[Aren]

A single, mandatory character who is also a romance interest and - depending on the ending state - will end your relationship. All the things that made Alistair great and DA:O a success. Clearly. Mission accomplished. 

 Alistair was a rehashed Carth Onassi, a former-soldier everyman, cuckoldedly overshadowed by your 2nd companions a female mystic (Bastilla/Morrigan), nipping your ear about every questionable moral choice...

Sleep at the camp 24/24 hours until he got head/chopped at the landsmeet?

This is to say that in the  killing simulator that was DAO aside from the Warden no one mattered at all,because their fate were always in my hands.

[c0bra951]

I figured that rivalry wasn't the death knell of companionship fairly quickly, but it still felt like punishment.  Later, when Merrill's actions and my responses to her plot led to the massacre of her clan, I just couldn't let it stand.  So I went back to an earlier save and reversed the whole thing.  (I wasn't sure I could, but I had to try.)  From that point forward, it became clear that rivalry was something to at least endure, if not embrace.

 

But Gaider is right.  This system was not communicated properly, and leads to confusion.

[Beomer]

Nice interview mate, and thanks for the transcript. Really helps me save time.

I had thought that after more than four years I would be fine with reading about stuff that went wrong in DA2 and how they took Awakening Anders and made him into DA2 Anders. Apparently I was wrong. It's still setting me off how they screwed up DA2. Maybe a glass of cold water will help.

[Enigmatick]

I figured that rivalry wasn't the death knell of companionship fairly quickly, but it still felt like punishment.  Later, when Merrill's actions and my responses to her plot led to the massacre of her clan, I just couldn't let it stand.  So I went back to an earlier save and reversed the whole thing.  (I wasn't sure I could, but I had to try.)  From that point forward, it became clear that rivalry was something to at least endure, if not embrace.

 

But Gaider is right.  This system was not communicated properly, and leads to confusion.

But you can avoid killing her clan even if she is a rival, I did it on the first try.

 

If by communication he means the fact that Rival had an "evil looking" symbol and was dark red while friendship was light blue then yeah he's right, all it did was make people go: "Oh, Renegade and Paragon!" or in most cases "Ugh, Renegade and Paragon".

[andy6915]

I figured that rivalry wasn't the death knell of companionship fairly quickly, but it still felt like punishment.  Later, when Merrill's actions and my responses to her plot led to the massacre of her clan, I just couldn't let it stand.  So I went back to an earlier save and reversed the whole thing.  (I wasn't sure I could, but I had to try.)  From that point forward, it became clear that rivalry was something to at least endure, if not embrace.

 

But Gaider is right.  This system was not communicated properly, and leads to confusion.

 

I embrace it. I learned early on that rivalry wasn't bad at all... Because of a glitch. Remember the Isabella thumbs up glitch? It would cause her to actually permanently slow Hawke by 5% every time she entered the party, to where you would be attacking several times slower than usual if you brought her everywhere (long long ago patched by now). The way to avoid it was to make her a rival instead, so that she wouldn't give the friendship bonus. A similar thing was the case for Sebastian, he also had a passive that negatively affected you on the friend path. And Isabella stuck with me the whole game, and was still quite likable. So I was basically forced into being rivals with at least 2 party members, and that first playthrough showed me that rivalry wasn't bad at all.

 

Most playthroughs I actually decide ahead of time who I will friend or rival, intentionally. I do have a few constants though. Anders is to always be rivaled, and Varric and Aveline are always to be friended. The rest though changes playthrough to playthrough, usually changing based on Hawke's dominant personality for that playthrough.

[TK514]

What I managed to read was interesting, but the grey on grey is an abomination.

[Dabrikishaw]

What I really liked about Friendship/Rivalry is that when you maxed out one end, it stays that way for the rest of the game. I loved that I could get everyone to max Friendship/Rivalry and have it stick.

[In Exile]

 

 Alistair was a rehashed Carth Onassi, a former-soldier everyman, cuckoldedly overshadowed by your 2nd companions a female mystic (Bastilla/Morrigan), nipping your ear about every questionable moral choice...

Sleep at the camp 24/24 hours until he got head/chopped at the landsmeet?

This is to say that in the  killing simulator that was DAO aside from the Warden no one mattered at all,because their fate were always in my hands.

 

 

I think you missed the joke, which was more about hanging the lampshade on someone who can't stop bringing up the Warden. And the Warden absolutely didn't matter in the long run, apart from the invincibility curtain that every DA protagonist gets. 

[Lee80]

I wish there was a rivalry system still.  I would enjoy Vivienne and Sera so much more as characters if that was the case.  

[Aren]

I think you missed the joke, which was more about hanging the lampshade on someone who can't stop bringing up the Warden. And the Warden absolutely didn't matter in the long run, apart from the invincibility curtain that every DA protagonist gets. 

i get it now,actually i was just insecure about it before.

[CosmicGnosis]

Sounds like the concepts I discussed in this thread:

 

http://forum.bioware...-the-da-series/

[AVPen]

I embrace it. I learned early on that rivalry wasn't bad at all... Because of a glitch. Remember the Isabella thumbs up glitch? It would cause her to actually permanently slow Hawke by 5% every time she entered the party, to where you would be attacking several times slower than usual if you brought her everywhere (long long ago patched by now). The way to avoid it was to make her a rival instead, so that she wouldn't give the friendship bonus. A similar thing was the case for Sebastian, he also had a passive that negatively affected you on the friend path. And Isabella stuck with me the whole game, and was still quite likable. So I was basically forced into being rivals with at least 2 party members, and that first playthrough showed me that rivalry wasn't bad at all.

They fixed those two bugs in one of the later patches, right? (I can never remember if it was or not, but I never noticed those bugs in my playthroughs with the Isabella/Sebastian Friendship paths )

 

EDIT: Didn't notice the underlined part, lol, guess that answers my question. 

[Capone666]

What did you all think?

[ComedicSociopathy]

[Catche Jagger]

Well, it's good to know that DG agrees with me that Act II was the best in the game.

Thanks for the interview! The info here isn't suprising to me, due to the fact that it props up a lot of critiques and prior assumptions about the game's development. But it's good to feel justified.

[Nerevar-as]

Rivalry had the problem that you could act very opposite the other's values and yet they still followed you, so it definetely needed work.

And it seems clear that had the game succeeded, Hawke would have been DA Shepard.

[Wulfram]

Without meaning to sound condescending, but I'm inclined to believe the understanding is still lacking on your part. Or rather, I believe you are demanding/expecting it to be a direct replacement for the approval system functionally, which it is not, and are thus disappointed.

No, I understand it fine. I'm just expecting it to be inclined in a consistent manner that results in sensible results, rather than being frequently used differently from how Bioware says it is supposed to be understood, and which results in perverse outcomes like Fenris trying to kill you essentially because you oppose blood magic and slavery, and you told your cousin to go talk to your uncle.
 

1) Not disagreeing with someone for a change, or disagreeing with a friend does earn you their occasional opposite inclination.

I don't really understand what you're saying here
 

2) When it comes to gameplay and content: There is an option for each character's story which is sort of a breaking point, which will earn you almost maximum Rilvary and will constantly be referred to.
For example, if you decide to not give Merril the artifact. That is not acting like a jerk, that is taking a stand on your point.

That only really applies to Merrill. The other characters do not have that mechanic. That mechanic is in any case pretty much an admission that their implementation of Friendship/Rivalry was flawed, since it basically sidesteps the mechanic to turn it into a binary choice little different from the way Cole and Iron Bull work in DA:I. It's necessary because you're quite likely to have picked up a whole bunch of friendship points for being nice to her and or just being pro-mage, even if you're opposed to blood magic and to the whole mirror repair thing.
 

Also, if we're honest, those answers in which you would be simply acting like a jerk, a quite rare and seldomly highly "rewarded". Most characters only respond with approval at all when it comes to something that questions their beliefs.

That's not my recollection.

edit: Despite all this, I did actually appreciate the Rivalry system for allowing some variation in the relationship with the companions, and would have quite liked to see it return in improved form in DA:I. I just think it was flawed in implementation, and that Gaider's comments indicate a lack of understanding of how it was flawed in actual practice.

[Lee80]

What did you all think?

It was a very interesting interview, thanks for posting it.  

[teh DRUMPf!!]

And Merrill is a classic example. I think some people expected if they just supported Merrill in all her crazy blood magic and stuff that eventually they’d be able to convince her to change her mind. In what universe is that the case? So, you have a friend and the way you are going to convince them to change their mind is to say; you’re awesome; that is the right decision; every that you’re doing, do more of that; oh, by the way, do something completely opposite now. That’s not what happens. The only way to get Merrill to consider honestly that she is wrong is to go down the rivalry path.

And I think in some ways when we look back on that, part of the problem was maybe in communicating how that worked to players. Especially for people that played Origins, they maybe went into DA2 and they were kind of confused that rivalry isn’t negative. I think that was a little bit confusing. If I was to look back and say what maybe didn’t work as well. But I did like the fact that rivalry and friendship could be very different experiences, both in terms of your friendship and your romance with characters. And I think some people were surprised if they replayed and realized, hey, if you have a rivalry with Merrill, if you don’t agree with her and you tell her that, she can be mad, she thinks you’re being an ******* but ultimately it sinks in, and it’s a completely different experience.

 

!!!

 

>>> Players were too stupid to get it, so we better take it out!

 

This is why we can't have nice things.