Companion loyalty system?

[Keldorn]

Yes, I think companion loyalty is very important, but I would prefer it to be hidden. I think it is rediculous recent games implement an all-know status about your companions. Since when do you know exactly what your girlfriend / wife is thinking? You can guess, but know? But then again, recent games implement giving gifts ending up in having sex...

 

- Keldorn

[True_Spike]

Do not make a "mini game" out of the loyality system. It should be hidden for that reason alone - so that people won't bother simply maxing out a yet another statistic. A player should want to engage in conversations with NPCs and learn more about it because they are interesting and he wants to develop the relationship further to learn even more.

A loyality system is a must, because NPCs should have their own opinion and be vocal about it. When it comes to NPCs, nonconformism all the way.

Edited September 24, 2012 by True_Spike

[Ieo]

At first I thought show it, like DA:O but just because I'm a bit neurotic and did reload all the time, like others here have posted. So what I voted and what I -really- want is to be able to enjoy the game and see the fruits of my labour, what ever that'll be, so definately a hidden counter.

 

There is role-playing your character. And then there is "being played by the numbers."

 

Two of my friends, a married couple, are hardcore PNP role-players, noncrunchy type; I introduced them to PS:T first and then Baldur's Gate, and they enjoyed them both (they played one character, where the husband controlled the sprite and they both decided on dialogue options and metagame items). When DA:O was first advertised as the "spiritual successor to Baldur's Gate," of course we were interested.

 

I started playing the game first and whenever visiting, watched them play their own character as well. By this time, I knew about the companion meter and said in all seriousness to them, "You should put a post-it note in this corner because the numbers that pop up are stupidly distracting. If you pay attention to those and are OCD in the slightest, you'll start trying to reload every party NPC conversation to get the highest score. Don't do that! Just role-play like you normally would."

 

"Nah, it'll be fine."

 

So at some point, they tried talking to one of the new party members at camp. It went something like this:

First score was lukewarm, like +1. Wife was disappointed and asked hubby to reload.

Second score was barely better, only +2. Reload.

Third score was actually negative. Reload.

Fourth score was 0. Reload.

Fifth score was +1 again, I think.

 

At this point---they (mostly the wife) weren't paying as much attention to the dialogue itself than the leaps they could make for higher scores among dialogue options. They definitely weren't playing the character they had crafted before starting the game, complete with backstory. I was facepalming in the background, naturally. The husband I could tell was getting frustrated too. Then the wife started to suggest he reload again, and he turned to her with this funny expression. He and I said nothing.

 

She stopped and seemed to think about what she was actually doing. "Oh, uh... I'm doing what you said, aren't I?"

 

After that, I could tell their interactions with party members tended to be more resigned; if staying true to character, of course you wouldn't get everyone to agree with you all the time for the highest 'like' score. But seeing the negative scores or whatever defintely doesn't feel good either.

 

 

Text dialogue in those classical IE games were the only way to build character (with the help of partially voiced lines), so we know it's entirely possible to carry personality and emotion in text (PS:T included narrative descriptive bits too). And because text with partial VA flavor is the only way to interact with NPCs and party members, it stands to my reasoning that this particular aspect of the game should be more "realistic" in implementation, such that it doesn't encourage metagaming. Sigh, pause, hesitate, use hedge words, shout, nicknames or diminutives, honorifics, insults, short narrative descriptions of nonverbal items if necessary, etc.

 

Otherwise, explicitly scoring the companion interactions cheapens the entire immersive effort.

[Monte Carlo]

I know that criticizing poll methodology is very fashionable, but putting 'like PS:T' on this forum is a bit of a win button. I haven't seen so much love for WordScape, like, ever.

[Klaleara]

I cannot vote.

 

I want a loyalty system to an extent. I don't want party members to leave just because of how I act. However I would very much like missions where I may have to choose to kill them or not. I don't like choosing between people, cause a lot of the time I have to stick with the people I REALLY dislike simply because they are the only ones willing to deal with the actions I choose.

 

So yes to how they react to me, no to them randomly getting up and leaving me.

[Starglider]

Voted 'yes, invisible' but it would be cool if the character's UI portrait changed depending on whether they are neutral/happy/unhappy, so that you can see at a glance / have a constant visual reminder of whether your party is cheerfully following you in to hell, or sullenly executing your orders with gritted teeth.

We don't need that! we have the dialogue screen to show us some descriptions regarding what the companions' faces may (or may not) betray during all those moments you are affecting their "loyalty" AND said descriptions should depend on your Perception/Intelligence/Wisdom stat (or whatever makes sense in this newly developed character system).

 

This isn't a text adventure; if you wanted interactive fiction you are backing the wrong Kickstarter. The single biggest problem with PS:T was trying to cram novel-sized blocks of description into a tiny dialog window. Even Civilisation had NPC portraits with different facial expresions, way back in 1991, because showing is better than telling and somtimes a picture is literally worth a 1000 words (of tedious exposition). Getting to see a character you like happy or a character you hate angry is a small reward in itself.

[Tychoxi]

Voted 'yes, invisible' but it would be cool if the character's UI portrait changed depending on whether they are neutral/happy/unhappy, so that you can see at a glance / have a constant visual reminder of whether your party is cheerfully following you in to hell, or sullenly executing your orders with gritted teeth.

We don't need that! we have the dialogue screen to show us some descriptions regarding what the companions' faces may (or may not) betray during all those moments you are affecting their "loyalty" AND said descriptions should depend on your Perception/Intelligence/Wisdom stat (or whatever makes sense in this newly developed character system).

 

This isn't a text adventure; if you wanted interactive fiction you are backing the wrong Kickstarter. The single biggest problem with PS:T was trying to cram novel-sized blocks of description into a tiny dialog window. Even Civilisation had NPC portraits with different facial expresions, way back in 1991, because showing is better than telling and somtimes a picture is literally worth a 1000 words (of tedious exposition). Getting to see a character you like happy or a character you hate angry is a small reward in itself.

 

I understand what you are saying, and don't get me wrong, I don't want descriptions in every dialogue.

You should be aware, though, that:

* This is 2012 (and will be 2014), dialogue screen will no longer be "tiny".

* If you are not aware this is essentially a spiritual successor to BG2 and PS:T, then you are backing the wrong KS project.

* Did you play FO1/2? Those games were full of descriptions, and I'm sure you don't go around complainin' about them, do you consider them OK in that department?

* This is not a game about "showing", this is a game about stats and abstractions. I love me them gorgeous isometric graphics and animations (so yeah, I want that), but they are secondary to the systems implemented in the RPG.

[duskwind]

Ideally, how companions feel about you should be measured on more than one dimension, and they should interact with you differently based on how they feel about you (rather than only interacting at all if you've maxed out loyalty). That's a lot of work to write, though.

[Monkcrab]

Yes, please, but hidden. I love interacting with and affecting party members, but whenever I see numbers I get this ridiculous urge to game the system. Having to fight your instincts to have proper RPing fun is a kind of agony by itself.

[Sensuki]

Well basically there'll always be some kind of system for this

 

It could be based on certain responses, such as

 

IF <charname> picks optionA of conversation32 THEN

trigger notHappyJanConvo1

timer 600

 

IF <charname> picks optionD of notHappyJanConvo1 THEN

trigger notHappyJanConvo2

timer 900

 

IF <charname> picks optionG of notHappyJanConvo2 THEN

trigger antagonistPlot

partymember = 0

 

or be based on a numbers system where doing things NPCs dont like chips a few points off their i like you score etc

[Bos_hybrid]

Honestly I like a loyalty system, when it makes sense in the game. AP was pretty good at this, with different outcomes for both positive and negative relations, that works much better than dummy spit, disappear and no more content.

 

I'm not saying I don't want characters to dummy spit for a action that really appalls them, just not the BG, 'I'm leaving you on your murderous adventure', despite I'm a harper. More consequence please, let them leave only to return to try and do away with the PC, or stay and plot with other party members to try and bring you down from the inside.

[Sarog]

Please no Bioware-style affection points harvesting minigame that equates loyalty with wine and baubles.

[kenup]

I don't know whether hidden checks will really stop me from trying to get everything I want right(or wrong). I mean, in the first playthrough, I probably won't check any guides or wikis, but after that.....

 

I would like it, if it was visible through words below the portrait, in the character screen. As in:

 

[boone's Portrait]

Hater Rival

 

or shown on their expresion in the portraits, as someone said.