Dragon Age 2

[Tigranes]

*shrug* we can simplify and generalise to extremes, but you know that's not what I mean - I just said I was fine with, say, Jaheira's harper pin. The difference is when you get a very direct, quantified, blatant, systematic, comprehensive thing going on.

 

New Vegas is part of the problem for me rather than the solution, though not as bad. Certainly DAO's gifts system was pretty much identical to dating sims and hentai games in terms of mechanics.

[Tale]

I'm not generalizing to an extreme at all. It is the same deal. RPGs dangle carrots to get you to experience the content. Companion quests and interactions are content. That's virtually a rule.

 

As a generalization it's appropriate.

Edited December 3, 2010 by Tale

[sorophx]

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.

man, I only lost Neeshka and the paladin ****, still couldn't win that battle. replayed it 10 or so times, got really close the last time but for some reason couldn't destroy the sphere... I can't imagine beating the SL without the golem or my mages

[HoonDing]

You always lose either Sand or Qara before the final battle.

[sorophx]

right, probably Qara in my case. still, that makes 3. I heard some people lost 2/3 of their allies, how the hell did they manage to win?

[HoonDing]

right, probably Qara in my case. still, that makes 3. I heard some people lost 2/3 of their allies, how the hell did they manage to win?

You always keep Khelgar, Grobnar, Jerro and the githzerai. Should be enough to win, provided you crafted/bought them all some uber equipment & weapons.

[sorophx]

provided you crafted/bought them all some uber equipment & weapons.

yeah, Final Fantasy VIII took that out of me

[Maria Caliban]

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?

 

Your hyperbole aside, companions and followers are very long sidequests. RPGs reward you with interacting with them for the same reason you're rewarded for exploring an area, talking to all the NPCs, adding runes to your armor and weapon, and all the optional content RPGs give you that benefits the PC.

 

It makes no sense for an RPG to constantly hand out penalties simply because you're role-playing your character.

 

It's really a trap that the devs have put themselves into.

 

This is akin to saying that handing out XP and loot for doing a quest is a trap the developers have put themselves in. They do so to encourage the player and to give them a sense of accomplishment. If BioWare wanted to not give companion bonuses, they would stop doing so.

 

So you give equally weighted bonuses to companions liking AND disliking you.

 

The Friendship/Rivalry system is not about whether a companion likes or dislikes you. If you have high Friendship or high Rivalry, the companion likes you a great deal.

 

How about this? There are two Friendship paths. There's the Friendship path where you agree with one of their fundamental beliefs, and there's the Friendship path where you disagree. Perhaps they ardently believe in the Chantry while you think it's oppressive and corrupt.

 

If you don't want to be liked by the companion, then tell them to leave or don't interact with them or do something they really hate and have them leave you. But if you're talking with them, taking them along as you quest, and helping them with their problems then the assumption is you're they're going to like you.

[Slowtrain]

It makes no sense for an RPG to constantly hand out penalties simply because you're role-playing your character.

 

 

Actually it makes a lot of sense.

[HoonDing]

If one never interacts with party members, will they just remain neutral, meaning doing their jobs without all the drama? Or will they demand attention by questioning your decisions all the time? As useful as Morrigan was in DA:O, she was equally annoying that way.

Edited December 3, 2010 by virumor

[Amentep]

It makes no sense for an RPG to constantly hand out penalties simply because you're role-playing your character.

 

 

Actually it makes a lot of sense.

 

I think penalty is a charged word.

 

There should be consequences with how you choose to play - it sounds to me like there is with the new system.

 

It also sounds to me like there might be an attempt at a somewhat more complex party dynamic.

 

The NPC might

• leave because they hate you
  
• leave because you hate them (and kicked them out of the party)
  
• be neutral because you don't talk to them and never bring them along on most quests (essentially making them a hired hand)
  
• Respect you but think you're an idiot (because your ideologies differ)
  
• Respect you because they think you're the bee's knees (because your ideologies coincide)
  

 

The last two options would be the rival/friendship path

[Maria Caliban]

If one never interacts with party members, will they just remain neutral, meaning doing their jobs without all the drama?

 

Sure. If you never interact with Aveline she'll do her job, which is work as a city guard. If you don't interact with Varric then he'll continue his job, which is working for the merchant's guild.

 

Or will they demand attention by questioning your decisions all the time? As useful as Morrigan was in DA:O, she was equally annoying that way.

 

Following you around isn't Aveline's job. If you ask her to accompany you one night while you investigate some dwarven ruins under the city, that's interacting with her, and she's going to base her opinion of you on what happens while you're together.

[Crazy Tuvok]

It makes no sense for an RPG to constantly hand out penalties simply because you're role-playing your character.

 

 

Actually it makes a lot of sense.

 

I think so too. In a game world where life is cheap and power talks the temptation will be to meta-game and choose whatever path gets you the bonuses/xp/treasure/whatever that you can milk from your companions. I don't mind this if you want to play a manipulative PC whose goal is to survive or flourish. I would like to see this have consequences tho.

 

BG2 had hints of this wherein certain party members would leave, put for my $ it was way too sparsely implemented. AP has this in that there are bonuses for RP'ing a PC as you see fit - kill/spare, liked/hated by NPCs etc. I would like to see a more fully realized version tho. If designers are looking to create believable companions and not just additional swords and inventory slots there should be consequences to your actions in your relationship with them.

 

And I for one would kind of like those consequences to be more severe - the good path for instance should be harder. But most games that take this route take it right back - "will you sacrifice 1 point of Dexerity to save your imperiled friend or let them suffer? You will sacrifice it? Bing! You get +2 to Strength or since you are so selfless here is the Sword of the Just..."

 

To hell with that. Choices w/o consequences or choices that lead only to versions of the same consequence are meaningless and make a game a whole lot mroe shallow and by virtue of that not nearly as much fun.

 

Moreover, I think there are a good many gamers (more than just hc CRPG nuts) that would like this, tho this only (wild) speculation on my part.

[Monte Carlo]

I'm not bashing EmoWare in this post, it's a serious question.

 

Which is: Have CRPGs become too NPC-centric?

 

Of course NPCs are an important part of the game, but FFS the amount of effort that goes into them, for me, has outweighed their overall significance. I know a few folks here look down on old-skool values like exploration, fighting in tunnels, fun, humour and all the rest of the things that make games worth playing in the first place, but isn't the current NPC paradigm akin to the tail wagging the dog?

 

Frankly (done really well), a bit of dialogue, a side quest here and there and maybe a special item or two is more than enough NPC input for me.

[sorophx]

exploration, fighting in tunnels, fun, humour

this is the epitome of awesome for any rpg, what kind of person would look down on this?

[MrBrown]

I'm not bashing EmoWare in this post, it's a serious question.

 

Which is: Have CRPGs become too NPC-centric?

 

Of course NPCs are an important part of the game, but FFS the amount of effort that goes into them, for me, has outweighed their overall significance. I know a few folks here look down on old-skool values like exploration, fighting in tunnels, fun, humour and all the rest of the things that make games worth playing in the first place, but isn't the current NPC paradigm akin to the tail wagging the dog?

 

Frankly (done really well), a bit of dialogue, a side quest here and there and maybe a special item or two is more than enough NPC input for me.

 

As I see it, it's the want to create a story. And a story needs characters. And if the player determines stuff about the main character, the developers can't touch it too much; so, to create a story, they need strong NPCs.

 

It seems to be working too. It seems alot of people are willing to sacrifice some of these old-skool values of yours for that.

[Monte Carlo]

AND THEY ARE WRONG!

[Tale]

I could do without the tunnels, personally. But I'm not strongly advocating against them.

[Crazy Tuvok]

Too NPC-centric? Not sure what you mean here with this. Don't like em don't take em. In DA if you take dog, and Sten your NPC interaction will be at a minimum. Most CRPGs are not heavy on the NPC/companion interaction and those that have it I think have done it pretty well. I loved the banter in BG2 and did anyone play PS:T solo?

 

FOs, Arcanum Wizardry, KOTOR 1 and 2, BG1 and 2 etc...all had NPCs I liked (and wanted to know more about) and that were useful to have around. Some were more fascinating than others, some funnier than others and some downright annoying. Like real people.

 

I also think its a good design trick in that it makes the world in which you are adventuring seem bigger than just you and your problems. As if there are lives and adventures going on all around you, a world that was here before you and will be here after you.

 

*shrug* Companions (in general) work for me and I like them in games. Could do with some of the romance toned down tho.

[sorophx]

companions themselves aren't the problem, it's their personal quests, romances, gifts and all that jazz

[Volourn]

"AND THEY ARE WRONG!"

 

The success of games where the focus is heavily on npcs proves you wrong. Sorry.

[Crazy Tuvok]

companions themselves aren't the problem, it's their personal quests, romances, gifts and all that jazz

 

Romance and gifts I'll give you, but done well personal quests can be outstanding.

 

Learning Dak'kon's history in PS:T (which is a personal quest of a decidedly PS:T nature) was terrific. If you have never had high enough WIS to finish it I highly recommend it.

 

Morrigan's in DA lead to a pretty interesting choice. One of the better choices in the game I thought.

 

Like combat or art assets it is all about how not whether they are done.

[Cantousent]

I played BG a couple of times with my own custom party. No banter at all.

 

The thing is, games have NPCs. It's natural for the devs to take advantage of the NPCs in order to engage the player. That doesn't mean they have to sacrifice fighting in tunnels or killing monsters or tactical gameplay. It does mean that they have to invest design time and figure that most players ought to experience that design.

 

I'm trying to wrap my mind around the rivalry system. I didn't immediately understand, but what I've gathered from reading some of the posts here is that there really isn't an 'evil' path, per se. For that reason, I can sort of get into the rivalry system. As I understand it, and I'd appreciate it if someone flat told me if I'm wrong in this, the PC interacts with the NPCs and they can either get along well because they are more or less simpatico in terms of their methods or they're friends because they have the same goal and enjoy arguing over their methods. I can understand that sort of friendship.

 

Not everyone will get along even though they agree with each other as pertains to methods and goals. Of couse, folks who disagree about methods and goals can sometimes be friends, but they'll often be at odds. ...But if Bio has decided on this course of action and manage to do it well enough, I can buy into the idea. The party NPCs just happen to be folks who are in some way compatible with the PC, whether they're in completely agreement about how best to go about their business or not. Other npcs are arrayed all along the spectrum, from helpful to hostile. So I can get behind the design and enjoy the game assuming they do it well.

 

As for the devs punishing the player for their actions, I see it more as rewarding the player with consequences for his decisions. I don't demand consequences in terms of NPCs. Fair enough, but there must be consequences for player decisions at some point that transcend attribute points and perks. I have consistently advocated making the truly evil or truly good paths more difficult for the player. That is a reward for me, not a punishment. I might be alone, but I don't think so. in fact, it's clear that at least some of the other folks here have at least a similar outlook such as Crazy T and Slowt.

[sorophx]

Like combat or art assets it is all about how not whether they are done.

I'll have to agree with you on this one. Dakkon's side-quest was fantastic. Morrigan's was horrible. I mean, I went both ways there and didn't see any difference (well, there was some difference xp wise, slaying the beast was a better choice, but the outcome stays the same no matter what you do)

[Gorth]

Which is: Have CRPGs become too NPC-centric?

While you were down in your tunnels, the world changed. Why do think such things as twitter and facebook are successful? It has all become a substitute for interacting with "real" people