192 réponses à ce sujet

[Qun00]

I think this approval system is very clever in that it means two people don't have to think the same way in order to be friends or lovers.

At the same time, it seems odd that this person who is pissed at you in most of the time and for very good reasons is your friend somehow.

Okay, maybe it still is possible to see how it could work with people like Isabela, Aveline and Varric. But Fenris wouldn't mind a mage sympathiser? Anders and Merril are supposed to be friends with someone who opposes their life goals?

[renfrees]

Fenris stays because he thinks he owes Hawke and so Hawke would help him fight Danarius. He's tired of running and Hawke and their friends provide protection. Rivalry dialogue with Merrill generally shows that Hawke still cares for her and wants to protect her from the consequences of her life choices, and she acknowledges it: "I know you mean well..." Rivalry with Anders is the only relationship in the game that can be described as hate, but Hawke's friends help him to escape the notice of the templars.

[congokong]

Rivals aren't friends.

 

Ex:

 

Aveline : "Maybe we're not friends, but who else do I have?"

Hawke : "We're not exactly friends, Fenris."

Merrill : "But we were never friends."

 

When they are friends they refer to you as friends. Rivals just respect each other. I see enough of this in the real world; even in real life romances. The cliche "old married couple" is based off of this.

[Lythinae]

Yes and no.

It's not unbelievable that someone would hang around someone they don't much like, if they are friends with other members of a group or if there's some potential benefit for them. Varric is pretty clearly friends with Merrill, regardless of the relationship between Hawke and Merrill, and staying in touch with the guy who's friends with the Captain of the Guard is probably smart if your trying to hide, even if you don't like him much. No one is ever friends with everybody, or agrees with everyone all the time.

It's not without its limitations, though.

Like Fenris sticks around until the last quest, unless you tell him to leave/sell him. The game says it because he feels he owes Hawke, but realistically there are some circumstances where he'd high tail it out of there. Just being pro-mage would be enough on it's own. But a pro mage Hawke in a friend-mance with Anders who has taken every opportunity to point out how wrong Fenris is about magic/mages. No way he'd stick around. Especially on a rivalry path (I usually play the friend-mance, because I find the whole we're not friends + owing thing a bit squicky in a romance context. It's a close one though, since there are some rivalry scenes I prefer - like the first gift).

It also doesn't account for relationships changing. The game spans 9-ish years, and you never have a falling out with someone? Even when you pull a dick move, it doesn't really have a long term effect on your relationships with other companions.

I like it as a system, even if I'm not that fond of how it plays out sometimes.

[vertigomez]

It's not perfect, but it works. Anders is really the only one I'm iffy on.

I like rivalry with Fenris because you can consistently challenge his views without being a douche about it. Likewise, his pro-Circle arguments are well-reasoned and backed by experience, so I feel like we actually have conversations about mages instead of feeling like I'm talking to a brick wall. He respects pro-mage Hawke even if he disagrees with them. He owes them and believes that they are (or Bethany is) a strong mage. The reason he's so much more frustrated in a rivalry is because you're not letting him place the blame for every bad thing in his life on magic.

Merrill's rivalry feels very organic, too... though I also like her friendship arc. You can go most of the game pursuing friendship with her until a critical moment when it has the potential to become a whole heaping lot of rivalry. The idea is that you're trying to protect her from herself (making deals with dangerous entities, the risk of possession, not eating or emerging from her house for days on end). She resents it, but it's a similar relationship to what she has with Marethari: someone who loves her and is watching out for her, but doesn't approve of the path she's taken.

[Qun00]

I was so dedicated to rivaling Fenris, taking him with me on every mage related quest.

But doing A Bitter Pill was all it took to bump the bar to Friendship.

[renfrees]

I wouldn't recommend switching path halfway through the game. You'll likely won't be able to max him until the end of the game and that will have... unpleasant consequences.

[Ninna]

I've both friendmanced and rivalmanced Anders.

When I tried the rivalmance, I got 100% Rivalry with Anders by the beginning of Act 2. After that I was pro-mage. So while Anders will say the things Rival Anders says (for example, when you give him the gift he goes: "WTF, you're giving me a gift? Is this some Free Marches Holiday?"), my Hawke is just a very blunt guy who changed his mind, but doesn't always agree with everything Anders says. But he supports mages.

 

I like rivalry with Fenris because you can consistently challenge his views without being a douche about it. 

Yes to this. I like rivalry with Fenris because it feels better than other rivalries.

[Ghost Gal]

I don't think it's believable at all.

 

It seems to me the way to earn rivalry points is either to be a complete ******* to the person, which makes me wonder, "Why would they want to be around you when you just treat them like dirt?" Or to say/do things they deeply, fundamentally disagree with, like hurting mages and elves and trying to sabotage her life's work for Merrill, supporting the Circle and Templars for Anders, helping mages and slavers for Fenris, etc. Sure, tell the guy who was locked in the Circle his whole life that that's where mages belong and put mages back there in front of him every chance you get; he'll totally love you and respect you and stick with you instead of hating your guts and eventually reaching a point where he never wants to see you again. Same with Fenris regarding mages and slavers, same with Merrill regarding mistreatment of innocents (particularly mages and elves) and her own life's work. 

 

With Isabela it kind of works because the game hints that she has a heart of gold under her selfish, thrill-seeking exterior, and a "rival" Hawke (who doesn't treat her like dirt) just does nice things for people and/or reminds her of her pesky conscious, which she'll eventually kind of thank you for; at least along the lines of, "You know, I kinda like helping people."

 

As it is though, I don't see rivalry as anything other than a "get out of driving away your companions by treating them like dirt or doing things they find morally repugnant enough times" free card. No matter how badly Hawke treats them, they always come back for more. No matter how many times Hawke does something they find morally disgusting, they act like it's just a difference in taste, like tea or furniture, instead of clashes in deeply held moral values.

[renfrees]

Do you know the fastest and easiest way to gain a whopping +50 rivalry with Merrill? Destroy Tarohne's blood magic tomes. Now tell me, what mage or elf I'm mistreating by doing this? Or which mage I'm sending back to the Circle by refusing to help Anders inside the Chantry and getting +30 rivalry? Or by telling him he's possessed (which he technically is) and gaining +35 rivalry? Or what deal I'm having with a slavers by simply being a mage to earn minimum +10 rivalry with Fenris? Or telling him there's nothing left for me in Ferelden for another +20 rivalry.

 

Guess all these acts must be very immoral in your book.

[DebatableBubble]

The only rivalry paths I've done were Merrill's and Anders'. Merrill's path felt natural because it was more like a parent worrying over their kid who wants to go jump off a cliff because it'll give them a new perspective on life or something. 

 

 

Anders' rivalry path felt natural because he's a raging lunatic who deserves every bad thing that has ever happened to him.

[sylvanaerie]

It's not perfect, but it works. Anders is really the only one I'm iffy on.

I like rivalry with Fenris because you can consistently challenge his views without being a douche about it. Likewise, his pro-Circle arguments are well-reasoned and backed by experience, so I feel like we actually have conversations about mages instead of feeling like I'm talking to a brick wall. He respects pro-mage Hawke even if he disagrees with them. He owes them and believes that they are (or Bethany is) a strong mage. The reason he's so much more frustrated in a rivalry is because you're not letting him place the blame for every bad thing in his life on magic.

Merrill's rivalry feels very organic, too... though I also like her friendship arc. You can go most of the game pursuing friendship with her until a critical moment when it has the potential to become a whole heaping lot of rivalry. The idea is that you're trying to protect her from herself (making deals with dangerous entities, the risk of possession, not eating or emerging from her house for days on end). She resents it, but it's a similar relationship to what she has with Marethari: someone who loves her and is watching out for her, but doesn't approve of the path she's taken.

 

I rivalmanced Fenris on a pacifistic diplomatic LadyHawke mage, and the arguments had a "stop all the hate, it's killing you" feel to it.  I found him much more interesting rivalmanced, though I have also friendmanced him.

 

Same with Merrill, it was more 'save her from herself'.  And she matures more in a rivalmance, making for an interesting character arc.  You don't even have to be nasty with her.  Doing that 'destroy the books' quest nets you 50 points easily without saying a word.   Refusing to deal with demons nets more.  All my Hawkes were very anti-blood magic so rivaling her is the easiest of the companions since I find it difficult to play A-hole characters.

 

I felt closer to rivaled Anders than friended because rivalry seems to explain his ultimate actions in Act 3 so much better than a friended Anders does.  And he seems more 'realistic' rivaled to me, though it can be roleplayed out in your head from 'trying to save him from himself' to outright hatred--and I've done both perspectives.  Also, you can tell rivaled Anders "I forgive you" right before you murderknife him, which, after several playthroughs finally getting to say felt very complete in his character arc.

 

Love doesn't always mean saying "yes" to your loved one. Sometimes you have to take action to keep them from jumping off that cliff you see them rushing headlong for.

[congokong]

Yes and no.

It's not unbelievable that someone would hang around someone they don't much like, if they are friends with other members of a group or if there's some potential benefit for them. Varric is pretty clearly friends with Merrill, regardless of the relationship between Hawke and Merrill, and staying in touch with the guy who's friends with the Captain of the Guard is probably smart if your trying to hide, even if you don't like him much. No one is ever friends with everybody, or agrees with everyone all the time.

It's not without its limitations, though.

Like Fenris sticks around until the last quest, unless you tell him to leave/sell him. The game says it because he feels he owes Hawke, but realistically there are some circumstances where he'd high tail it out of there. Just being pro-mage would be enough on it's own. But a pro mage Hawke in a friend-mance with Anders who has taken every opportunity to point out how wrong Fenris is about magic/mages. No way he'd stick around. Especially on a rivalry path (I usually play the friend-mance, because I find the whole we're not friends + owing thing a bit squicky in a romance context. It's a close one though, since there are some rivalry scenes I prefer - like the first gift).

It also doesn't account for relationships changing. The game spans 9-ish years, and you never have a falling out with someone? Even when you pull a dick move, it doesn't really have a long term effect on your relationships with other companions.

I like it as a system, even if I'm not that fond of how it plays out sometimes.

 Hawke's story spans roughly 6 years actually.

 

I agree the way they developed some of the rivalmances seems absurd.

"We're not exactly friends, Fenris" followed shortly after by "Nothing could be worse than the thought of living without you."

 

In fairness though, all the DA2 romances were poorly done.

 

Lastly, I agree Fenris stcking around with, say, a slave-owning blood mage Hawke does seem absurd. Simply disagreeing about mage freedom though? I could see him "agreeing to disagree" as his rival icon puts it.

[congokong]

The only rivalry paths I've done were Merrill's and Anders'. Merrill's path felt natural because it was more like a parent worrying over their kid who wants to go jump off a cliff because it'll give them a new perspective on life or something. 

 

 

Anders' rivalry path felt natural because he's a raging lunatic who deserves every bad thing that has ever happened to him.

With Anders to befriend him, even pro-mage, I felt I had to often tip-toe around the dialogue. I've got this vibe with other characters like Shale, Sten, Morrigan, and Vivienne. And some of the things Merrill/Anders disapprove of our ridiculous. Agreeing to make Fenriel tranqul if they cannot save him earns rivalry? Seriously. No, I'll just let him become an abomination because being tranquil sucks.

 

And in the Deep Roads when you're trapped and the demon offers the only way out? Nope, demons are bad. +15 rivalry. Complaining to Anders about how he killed/nearly killed Elia? More rivalry. Not being ok with him being an abomination? That alone can earn you massive rivalry.

 

With Merrill she seems pro-demon beyond reason. Anything anti-demon can earn rivalry. Pointing out in night terrors that demons will betray you earns +20 rivalry!

 

 

To put it in perspective, every companion sometimes earns rivalry/friendhip for absurd reasons.

Ex: Aveline, advocate for law and order, disapproves of not taking the law into your own hands by being judge/jury/executioner for Kelder. And she disapproves of returning the tome to the qunari instead of letting Isabela give it to some slaver as repayment for freeing his slaves; likely causing Kirkwall to fall into war in the process.

[DebatableBubble]

To be fair, I think that highlights the fact that Anders has completely changed due to his joining with Vengeance and Merrill is too proud to admit that she could be wrong.

[Wulfram]

Sometimes it makes sense and sometimes it doesn't. The system doesn't really have a way of telling the difference between "Hawke cares about Merrill and wants to protect her" and "Hawke is a mean jerk".

[nightscrawl]

I think this approval system is very clever in that it means two people don't have to think the same way in order to be friends or lovers.

At the same time, it seems odd that this person who is pissed at you in most of the time and for very good reasons is your friend somehow.

Okay, maybe it still is possible to see how it could work with people like Isabela, Aveline and Varric. But Fenris wouldn't mind a mage sympathiser? Anders and Merril are supposed to be friends with someone who opposes their life goals?

 

Even though the concept for the F/R system was interesting, and the varying results were fun to role play, I don't think it worked out very well in the end.

 

The problems are manifold. The game is not nuanced enough to differentiate, or put weight on, various dialog options to have the reasons for the rival relationship be more granular. If you disapprove of the Anders/Justice merge and accrue rivalry based on that, the game, and consequently the man himself, also acts as if you oppose mage freedom or that you support the templars.

 

Also, I don't think that a rival relationship works well for the romances as they are designed in DA2 as turning into long-term relationships, or even of just smoldering over a period of years. Within the setting of DAO or even DAI where you have a world-ending calamity, your character is thrust into a (potentially stressful) leadership position, and the shortish timespan (1-1.5 years), the setting is much more able to support a rival romance that turns into a passionate fling. People coming together during a crisis is not uncommon; it's a situation that is tying people together who would normally not be.

 

But DA2 is not the same. Hawke and co. are living in Kirkwall and the playable parts of the game occur over seven years. It just doesn't make sense to me that someone would enter into a long-term romantic relationship with someone they are contentious with. Now, Anders can be explained away because he has just so many issues, including an obsession with Hawke, that allow for that on his part. But for everyone else? Hawke and all of the other LIs included? No it just doesn't make sense to me.

 

Honestly, I would much rather they had used this system in DAI where the followers themselves were highly developed and mostly independent from the player/Inquisitor. It would have been quite interesting to see how that might have played out for certain individuals.

[Youknow]

I think the issue is that with something like rivalry, you still need an approval system. Like as in you're two friends that are constantly bickering back and forth? Like Aveline and Isabella turned out towards the end of DA2. So you can have friendship but low approval making a relationship where they like you, but they don't approve of the things you do-- think about someone like Wynne that would try to remain friendly even if you had low approval with her because she wants to be friends with the warden but can't completely because (s)he does things that she ultimately cannot agree with. A system like that would probably give devs a bit more wiggle room and not make things come across as stiff to the player. 

 

The issue is that some of them blurred the lines while some of them like Merril and your sibling worked fine. 

[Lazarillo]

I think the issue is that with something like rivalry, you still need an approval system. Like as in you're two friends that are constantly bickering back and forth? Like Aveline and Isabella turned out towards the end of DA2. So you can have friendship but low approval making a relationship where they like you, but they don't approve of the things you do-- think about someone like Wynne that would try to remain friendly even if you had low approval with her because she wants to be friends with the warden but can't completely because (s)he does things that she ultimately cannot agree with. A system like that would probably give devs a bit more wiggle room and not make things come across as stiff to the player. 

 

The issue is that some of them blurred the lines while some of them like Merril and your sibling worked fine. 

 

This is the key.  Friendship and Rivalry as they were done in DA2 didn't work for a variety of reasons, in part because different segments and missions clearly had different writers, to whom the system meant different things.  It was a cool idea and I'd like to see it come back, but it should be an axis system with Approval/Disapproval on one line and Agreement/Disagreement on the other, IMO.

[Jedi Master of Orion]

The game kind of seems to waffle on whether rivals are actually friends or not. And I think it can depend on how you play it. I remember Rivaling Merril twice, and the first time it seemed like we were friends that had one particular big argument, but the second time I remember us fighting a lot more.

[Cyberpunk]

They are pretty believable. Think about a co-worker who you can work with but you dislike yet can respect enough to not hate them. Or better yet, think of a supervisor or boss who you dislike but who you can play nice with. 

[congokong]

I think the friendship/rivalry system was a great concept and cannot understand why they ditched it for the stupid DA:I approval system. Well, I actually can understand it. DA:I's role-playing was laughable so the DA2 system wouldn't really work. It's evident in DA:I that when they're "rivals" it doesn't really make sense with their claims of how you're leading the Inquisition so poorly, bludgeoning your way through problems, etc. when you simply may just say the wrong things to the character in question.

 

That said, the friendship/rivalry system of DA2 could be fine-tuned. The notion of having rivalry and utter dislike is an intriguing one, although how that would be implemented would be tricky. Ex: When you brush Fenris off making Ariani a slave, that should result in dislike, not rivalry.

 

The other thing that really needs work is how character progression was hindered by the 50/100 friendship/rivalry Questioning Beliefs quests and such. They could even block potential romances if you didn't get it high enough, and without meta-gaming very few characters on my playthroughs ever got to the max. Ex: I'd try being nice to Fenris but anytime I supported anything magic-related I earned rivalry. Thus, for the first few playthrough before I meta-gamed out of it his approval would be stuck in the middle. That would mean no romance, no Questioning Beliefs quests, etc. Players shouldn't have to access Dragon Age Wiki to see what quests to bring certain characters, what to say, etc. just to develop a character relationship. Ex: There were barely enough opportunites for me to maximize Sebastian's rivalry. Without meta-gaming it never would have happened.

[renfrees]

It definitely could use tuning, but imho it was still better than DA:I's system, where if you didn't have high enough approval with a companion, you'd be locked out of their personal quests completely. Leaving you with only basic conversations and no development of their stories whatsoever. In DA2 you could do their personal quests regardless of the state of a relationship. Questioning Beliefs only affected their loyalty and romance's progression.

[ComedicSociopathy]

It might have worked in Origins or Inquisition when there was threat that forced all your companions to focus on the main mission of saving the world and leaving their personal feelings aside. But in Dragon Age 2 I kept asking why Anders or Fenris kept sticking around and acting like my henchmen. There's no reason for them stay around or just not flat out betray me earlier on then Act 3 if they believe that everything I do is against their strongest beliefs. 

[straykat]

It might have worked in Origins or Inquisition when there was threat that forced all your companions to focus on the main mission of saving the world and leaving their personal feelings aside. But in Dragon Age 2 I kept asking why Anders or Fenris kept sticking around and acting like my henchmen. There's no reason for them stay around or just not flat out betray me earlier on then Act 3 if they believe that everything I do is against their strongest beliefs. 

 

It seems like the story works pretty well if you simply dismiss Anders in Act 2, after him killing/almost killing that young mage. Someone who really dislikes him might just do this. Instead of carrying on the friendship. That's a more natural rivalry, I think. In Act 3, you'll see him visit Varric at the Tavern... and Hawke wonders why Anders was there, while Anders kind of dryly leaves not saying anything. It's like it assumes you did kick him and were surprised he'd even be around.

 

With Fenris, I suppose he's ultimately unsure of his own opinions and working things out... and just needs a friend. He doesn't just have a problem with mages. He's also lonely and doesn't have anything resembling a home. So he's pulled by these two things. And if you can't get full rivalry, he does finally turn on you. As does Merrill. So I think it's about as realistic as things can be, given the system.

 

 

But I liked it. Definitely better than DAI at least. There are far more things at stake in that story, yet it's much harder to disrupt group cohesian or make people think how disappointing you are. And even if they are disappointed, everything's still too delicate.