Dragon Age 2

[Maria Caliban]

Right, now that I have some energy drink in me...

 

The Friendship/Rivalry mechanic! David and Mary were kind enough to explain the system, and it seems like an improvement over the DA:O Approval mechanic.

 

BioWare saw two problems with the approval system. 1) You could only get a mechanical benefit or more follower conversation by agreeing with your companion, which led to players feeling punished if they RPed their PC honestly, and 2) You could gift spam a companion into liking you.

 

 

The Friendship/Rivalry system lets you disagree with companion's fundamental viewpoints while still getting a benefit and being able to progress the relationship. For example, if you spoke with Leliana, you would gain minor Rivalry points by saying that you didn't believe in the Maker. With Morrigan, you would get major Rivalry points for staying to save Redcliffe.

 

As you progress along either path, there are bonuses. Rivalry path ones usually improve the companion (as they struggle to prove their viewpoint is better) while Friendship path ones usually help the PC or the group.

 

Friendship/Rivalry is not the same as like or dislike. With high Friendship, Morrigan would see the PC as smart and ruthless, and with high Rivalry, she'd see the PC as soft-hearted, but she'd still respect their power given they've accomplish so much while letting weaker people leech off them.

 

Companions might still attack you under specific circumstances.

 

At the end of the Rivalry path, the companion will typically confront you one last time. They might leave, you might reach an understanding, or you might be able to persuade them to your viewpoint. This would be akin to hardening Leliana by convincing her that her time with the Chantry was a lie and that she's really a bard at heart.

 

As for gifts, companion gifts in DA 2 are all like Morrigan's mirror, Sten's sword, or Andreste's Grace for Leliana. They're individual to that character and trigger conversations. How a companion reacts to a gift depends on whether you're a friend or a rival. For example, if you gave a follower a sword, a friend might react with gratitude while a rival might scoff at the notion that they need it and tell you to keep it.

Edited December 2, 2010 by Maria Caliban

[Guest Slinky]

As for gifts, companion gifts in DA 2 are all like Morrigan's mirror, Sten's sword, or Andreste's Grace for Leliana. They're individual to that character and trigger conversations. How a companion reacts to a gift depends on whether you're a friend or a rival. For example, if you gave a follower a sword, a friend might react with gratitude while a rival might scoff at the notion that they need it and tell you to keep it.

Finally some light at the end of the tunnel. Not quite sure how they didn't see anything wrong with the gift flood in DA while it was still just a idea on a paper.

 

And the friendship/rivalry mechanic sounds like an improvement.

[sorophx]

I wouldn't mind an RPG framed as a musical.

two words: Epic Mickey

[HoonDing]

Why does every romance partner have to be a party member? Can't they just introduce a childhood friend or something who stays at home while you're running around doing stuff?

 

[Orchomene]

Right, now that I have some energy drink in me...

 

The Friendship/Rivalry mechanic! David and Mary were kind enough to explain the system, and it seems like an improvement over the DA:O Approval mechanic.

 

BioWare saw two problems with the approval system. 1) You could only get a mechanical benefit or more follower conversation by agreeing with your companion, which led to players feeling punished if they RPed their PC honestly, and 2) You could gift spam a companion into liking you.

 

 

The Friendship/Rivalry system lets you disagree with companion's fundamental viewpoints while still getting a benefit and being able to progress the relationship. For example, if you spoke with Leliana, you would gain minor Rivalry points by saying that you didn't believe in the Maker. With Morrigan, you would get major Rivalry points for staying to save Redcliffe.

 

As you progress along either path, there are bonuses. Rivalry path ones usually improve the companion (as they struggle to prove their viewpoint is better) while Friendship path ones usually help the PC or the group.

 

Friendship/Rivalry is not the same as like or dislike. With high Friendship, Morrigan would see the PC as smart and ruthless, and with high Rivalry, she'd see the PC as soft-hearted, but she'd still respect their power given they've accomplish so much while letting weaker people leech off them.

 

Companions might still attack you under specific circumstances.

 

At the end of the Rivalry path, the companion will typically confront you one last time. They might leave, you might reach an understanding, or you might be able to persuade them to your viewpoint. This would be akin to hardening Leliana by convincing her that her time with the Chantry was a lie and that she's really a bard at heart.

 

As for gifts, companion gifts in DA 2 are all like Morrigan's mirror, Sten's sword, or Andreste's Grace for Leliana. They're individual to that character and trigger conversations. How a companion reacts to a gift depends on whether you're a friend or a rival. For example, if you gave a follower a sword, a friend might react with gratitude while a rival might scoff at the notion that they need it and tell you to keep it.

 

Seeing it's done by Bioware, I already doubt the result won't be broken : you either are friendly totally or totally antagonist with someone else nothing will arrive. I've never seen one of their games where a relationship mechanism is not extreme. The concept might be interesting, but the result is what is important. You may be confident, I'm not. I may become a bit more if the friendship/rivalry is not just another light/dark side, that is, if you can build relationship based on both friendship and rivalry as you can expect it to be possible.

[Hassat Hunter]

I always picked the other dudes in the Dwarven city.

You didn't play Nightmare did you?

 

Micro-management is certainly helpful... more so than automatiation, so uncontrollable combat NPC's would be bad unless you just make it a Diablo Hack&Slash. There 1 controllable PC works.

Never played Baldur's Gate? How would it be if you only controlled the Bhaalspawn and the other members were under AI control?

[Guest Slinky]

BTW, has there been any confirmation how the combat works, especially on PC? Clickety click to whack? Do you control companions? What about the camera, fixed in third person?

Edited December 2, 2010 by Slinky

[Labadal]

Until we see actual PC footage, no one will know.

 

They keep saying that the PC version plays more or less like the previous game, but they aren't showing us anything from that version.

[Amentep]

I always picked the other dudes in the Dwarven city.

You didn't play Nightmare did you?

 

Nope.

 

Micro-management is certainly helpful... more so than automatiation, so uncontrollable combat NPC's would be bad unless you just make it a Diablo Hack&Slash. There 1 controllable PC works.

Never played Baldur's Gate? How would it be if you only controlled the Bhaalspawn and the other members were under AI control?

 

I don't recall the NPCs in Baldur's Gate really having robust AI's.

 

Even still I mostly allowed them to do what they wanted based on their AI except in extreme situations.

[Maria Caliban]

BTW, has there been any confirmation how the combat works, especially on PC? Clickety click to whack? Do you control companions? What about the camera, fixed in third person?

 

Auto-attack.

You control companions.

Limited zoom out. Possibly only during combat.

[Guest Slinky]

BTW, has there been any confirmation how the combat works, especially on PC? Clickety click to whack? Do you control companions? What about the camera, fixed in third person?

 

Auto-attack.

You control companions.

Limited zoom out. Possibly only during combat.

Huh, I was almost sure the game is going to be one of those ADHD whack 'n slash games. Well, I guess I check the game out after I have sucked Witcher 2 and Deus Ex 3 dry.

Edited December 2, 2010 by Slinky

[Volourn]

"Dave Gaider is at least being completely up-front about the customer's essentially passive role in his interactive novel. "

 

L0L because he tells someone that BIO isn't planning to make it so easy to mute PC voice? The connection to what youw rote to what the quote was is hilarious.

 

P.S. The new 'approval' system has potential.

[Tale]

I wouldn't mind an RPG framed as a musical. Not hard, just take mundane dialogue and sing the lines. I'm thinking the start of Beauty and the Beast.

 

 

EDIT: Heck, the brother character would be a good Gaston, chin and all.

Get Joss Whedon involved and I'm sold.

 

Edit: Or Mel Brooks.

Edited December 2, 2010 by Tale

[Raithe]

"Doctor Horrible - The RPG!"

[HoonDing]

Huh, I was almost sure the game is going to be one of those ADHD whack 'n slash games. Well, I guess I check the game out after I have sucked Witcher 2 and Deus Ex 3 dry.

Isn't Witcher 2 combat going full ADHD whack 'n slash? At least the first one was deferred whack 'n slash, with the time-based clicking.

[Guest Slinky]

Huh, I was almost sure the game is going to be one of those ADHD whack 'n slash games. Well, I guess I check the game out after I have sucked Witcher 2 and Deus Ex 3 dry.

Isn't Witcher 2 combat going full ADHD whack 'n slash? At least the first one was deferred whack 'n slash, with the time-based clicking.

Don't really know anything about the new system in witcher 2 so I can't say anything about it, but I tolerate the combat in witcher 1. Don't like nor hate, tolerate.

 

But what I truly loathe are the fast paced "push buttons like a lunatic to swing" systems, like ninja gaidens and such. I really hate those and DA2 looked a lot like that in the videos I have seen.

 

I still remember fondly Severance's combat. Slow paced and brutal, just the way I like it.

[Cantousent]

What I don't like about the new system is that it doesn't matter what you do, your companions will follow you.

 

Dudley Dooright of the Mounties? Your good companions follow you because you're like them.

 

Snidely Whiplash? Your good companions follow you because you're so badass.

 

Penelope Pitstop? Your good companions follow you because you look good tied up in rope.

 

Completely ambivalent? Your good companions follow you because you manage to keep your balance by helping half the waifs and killing the other half.

 

The idea of real consequences goes completely out the window. I don't mind story driven. No biggie if you take away my control of the sex of the main character or limit the classes or even force me to complete areas in a certain order. What I don't like is if any choice I make won't have any impact on my companions. Frankly, we need more consequences, not less. I mean, I think we should have companions leaving us earlier for being how we are. Maybe you could put in a way to ingratiate yourself back into the good graces of companions who've thrown you over. Fine. I don't even hate the rivalry idea as long as it doesn't cover everything. There should be certain points where particular companions will not follow for taking certain actions. It could be breaking some specific code or showing that you're an amoral murderer or simply hating your attitude. I understand that the team wants to make sure folks have access to a decent pool of possible companions and that they need to have all the roles filled for every character choice. Fair enough.

 

On the other hand, it is a step in the right direction that I can't overcome contrary decisions by spamming gifts on people. In that regard, DA:O was worse than the rivalry system in that the player could piss off the npcs, who wouldn't leave me anyhow, and then get backin good graces by throwing a few bones out to the disgruntled companions. I would like to see more consequences in how my actions impact my relations with npcs, not less.

[Tale]

Past the initial reaction, I'm quite okay with them staying with you regardless. I might prefer if there was some choice and consequence element. Perhaps akin to Alpha Protocol's where a bonus is conferred, but a different one depending on approval or rejection. That may conflict with my next sentence however.

 

I'm attached to the party members being a valid choice for all players, simply so combat strategy doesn't interfere with roleplaying. Though not necessarilly at the extremes, such as a player roleplaying a complete unrelenting sociopath, eating babies, while the kind companions just sigh at him. With them denying that particular path, it's not an issue.

Edited December 2, 2010 by Tale

[Crazy Tuvok]

I'm attached to the party members being a valid choice for all players, simply so combat strategy doesn't interfere with roleplaying.

 

I don't know. I think it would be a pretty great game that made the path you choose have some dire consequences; like combat just got a whole lot trickier because you choose a noble path and the evil (but powerful) mage will no longer fight at your side. This could of course be balanced with some kind of longer term reward for your decency but I would really like it to be a tough choice to have to stick to my principles knowing full well that the cost is high. The good path/evil wizard companion being a simple example.

[Tale]

I'm attached to the party members being a valid choice for all players, simply so combat strategy doesn't interfere with roleplaying.

 

I don't know. I think it would be a pretty great game that made the path you choose have some dire consequences; like combat just got a whole lot trickier because you choose a noble path and the evil (but powerful) mage will no longer fight at your side. This could of course be balanced with some kind of longer term reward for your decency but I would really like it to be a tough choice to have to stick to my principles knowing full well that the cost is high. The good path/evil wizard companion being a simple example.

I completely and one hundred percent appreciate the notion of using choice/consequence to present a message about those choices. IE: Good is difficult. It promotes my sole ability to appreciate and analyze narratives by their themes, metaphors, and messages. I think it creates a deep combination of storytelling and gameplay. But Origins never tried it and I can't be disappointed for DA2 not going that route.

 

I'm actually more attached to DA for strategy.

 

So I can support it as a design goal for greater thematic purpose, but not if it's not tied into greater concepts. I see where you're at and I can't entirely disagree.

Edited December 2, 2010 by Tale

[Niten_Ryu]

I think it would be a pretty great game that made the path you choose have some dire consequences; like combat just got a whole lot trickier because you choose a noble path and the evil (but powerful) mage will no longer fight at your side.

 

Unfortunately that ain't viable design choice nowadays. We're in the era where computer games are more interactive movies (see Call of Duty Black Ops) then games designed to give you some challenge. In NWN2 you could lose one powerful mage in the final battle, but you'd still have one left. Actually you could lose several members but that didn't make too big of a difference in the actual encounter. In Mass Effect 2 you can lose all your members (and even get main character killed), but only in final battle. In Fallout New Vegas all your companions can die, but then again, they are not really needed (but it's fun to see characters like Whiskey Rose getting dusted in the middle of the game, props for Obsidian for designing that quest).

 

Yes, I love choices and consequences.. especially making extremely bad choices and then figuring out how to make my character to survive despite that. No wonder Chaotic Stupid

[Tigranes]

It's good that Bio revamped the approval system in this way, but I really don't understand one fundamental thing:

 

Why do we need to get gameplay benefits for follower relationships so much? And why do we need to get it in this totally comprehensive and systematic way that ensures no matter what you do you will get some kind of bonus and they are ideally balanced so all bonuses are equally beneficial?

 

It's really a trap that the devs have put themselves into. When you start introducing +3 to Hit Points or something as representative of a companion's loyalty to you, you start thinking, but what about other companions? Then once you give every companion bonsues, you think, but hang on, then people will just metagame companion dialogues. So you give equally weighted bonuses to companions liking AND disliking you. It's an improvement in the sense that if you're going to do it you might as well do it properly, but in the end nothing you do in that direction will solve the fundamental issue; companions and companion dialogues are now much more designed to be munchkin'd.

 

Certainly connecting the gameworld/gameplay across various systems is something that should be applauded, but I can't help but think that the direction we're seeing now is a dead end. It was okay when you had, say, Dak'kon's sword or Jaheira's harper pin, but geez. Maybe a quick fix is to not tie it to approval so much - a la New Vegas, Veronica can craft things for you just because that's what she's good at, not because she lurves you (or, uh, hates you so wants to help you really really good).

[Slowtrain]

Bioware games are pretty narcissistic. ALthough most video games are to a degree. Bioware just seems to up the narcissism ante somewhat.

[Orogun01]

Bioware games are pretty narcissistic. ALthough most video games are to a degree. Bioware just seems to up the narcissism ante somewhat.

To the point of self reference

[Tale]

RPGs incentivize content. It's little different giving a buff for reaching the end of a companion's content line than it is giving XP or items for reaching the end of a dungeon or doing a quest.

 

Yes, yes, maybe there's something to be said for doing away with that entirely. Let players turn down quests completely without fear of missing some xp gains, gold/caps/florens, weapons, or armor. But I don't see people exactly calling for it.

 

Even New Vegas has something similar. You do the companion quest and the companion gets a buff that ultimately helps you. Though it's tied only to outcomes for their quest they like.

Edited December 3, 2010 by Tale