Larian Banner
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 8 of 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Joined: Oct 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by alice_ashpool
Originally Posted by DanteYoda
and the charaters companions mirrored current BG3, they were all horrible, fighting with each other 24/7

Like, did everyone somehow forget that in BG2 different companions would argue with each other constantly and then fight each other to the death?




No unfavorable comparisons to the old Baldur's Gate games are allowed, now that Baldur's Gate 3 has become the New Enemy In The East.

Joined: Jun 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Jun 2020

Joined: Nov 2020
A
Ari Offline
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
A
Joined: Nov 2020
When it came to DA2, I remember being fond of the rivalry/friendship relation meter. Sure, it did lock one out of chasing off companions, outside of specific events, but it did give me reason to keep people around whose boots I did not find so tasty.

It also meant I could progress a relationship without having to be a companion’s twice venerated, maker’s chosen sworn sister.

Joined: Oct 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Ari
Originally Posted by Sozz
...I honestly don't understand the criticism of a character being 'unlikable' , that goes for companions and player characters. A clash of personalities can be as interesting as a bromide of backslapping and mutual admiration can be uninteresting.
Plus it gives your characters places to go during the story!
When it came to DA2, I remember being fond of the rivalry/friendship relation meter. Sure, it did lock one out of chasing off companions, outside of specific events, but it did give me reason to keep people around whose boots I did not find so tasty.

It also meant I could progress a relationship without having to be a companion’s twice venerated, maker’s chosen sworn sister.
I find myself being a DA II apologist around here for because of the interesting things DA II did with some of the more problematic aspects of NPC-PC interactions, such as making it possible to disagree with someone without it ending their story progression.
I might have gone off on this topic in another thread
Originally Posted by Sozz
Originally Posted by Tuv
Originally Posted by Sozz

I especially like your Mind-Flayer mind probe scenario, it sounds like a great way to establish some things for your character with out the possibility you're just bullshitting to get on someone's good side. a RPG pet peeve of mine


Hadn't considered that one could lie when giving those answers heh. Lae'Zel would also be a good point to ask some questions about the player character's past.

This point to me has been a real Achilles' Heel of RPG characterization for a while now, the way people develop their characters is through their actions and interactions with other people, The way you act might seem pretty straightforward but the motivations behind them aren't, consider our Grove-Goblin conflict, you don't need to be good to help out the Tieflings, your motivations can be totally selfish or altruistic, but the only way for the game to know that is through explicitly having your character talk about it, either with your companions or with themselves. This causes a problem, because your companions can like or dislike you, a whole system of min-max approval/disapproval gains take over from the role playing. Are you saying that because you believe it or because you want them to like you, are lying to them because you're a deceptive person or because the game rewards you for doing so. It's a game design that rewards the PC who is one of those high-functioning sociopaths, they don't have a externalized personality because all their interactions with other people go through these machinations. That's why I liked the mind probe scenario because it gets around the retroactive character building that is in play right now, which is subject this paradigm.

To give a few examples of this I found in the EA:

If double crossing Zevlor, he asks you why!?! you respond by saying, all hail the Absolute....what? does that mean I'm a true believer now? Am I just saying that to be shitty? I couldn't tell you.

Astarion comes upon us at night, revealing his need for blood, because I think he's a dreamy bad-boy I can 'fix', I let him 'neck' with me, the next morning the camp knows his true nature, and inquires into my disposition, I make clear, privately, that if anyone catches him sucking someone's blood, he's to be killed, I then ask Astarion if he'd be interested in a repeat of last night....what's going on here, am I trying to murder him the hard way? Am I just saying what I think everyone wants to hear? ...Am I jealous? Bite me sempai!

Like I said, pet peeve


Last edited by Sozz; 17/11/20 06:09 PM.
Joined: Mar 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Mar 2020
The rival\ friendship was really really good. it's a shame we never got a more evolved version of it. I think that although it might not work for every game, for the right settings it is the superior approval system for companions.


Larian's Biggest Oversight, what to do about it, and My personal review of BG3 EA
"74.85% of you stood with the Tieflings, and 25.15% of you sided with Minthara. Good outweighs evil, it seems."
Joined: Oct 2020
M
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
M
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Firesnakearies
Originally Posted by Maerd
Why this discussion is so long? DA:O would have been a good game if not for its extremely bland story: "Hordes of murder hobos kill everything and everyone, just because, and only one person can stop them." The writer of this crap should stop working in the gaming industry. The only way it can be appealing, if you never ever played any other CRPGs and evil for the sake of evil hordes are somehow a refreshing plot to you.


A game doesn't need a complicated or convoluted plot in order to be good.


If we talk about games in general then I agree, but if we're talking about RPGs specifically then the plot is everything, which is why in my view slashers like Diablo, Dark Souls and other games with stats without substance are not RPGs (they are action games with RPG elements). On the other hand, I consider Star Control 2 a real open world RPG despite it doesn't have formal stats (you can become more powerful by upgrading your ship instead) because it has very well made plot with choices and consequences.

Joined: Oct 2020
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Ari
When it came to DA2, I remember being fond of the rivalry/friendship relation meter. Sure, it did lock one out of chasing off companions, outside of specific events, but it did give me reason to keep people around whose boots I did not find so tasty.

It also meant I could progress a relationship without having to be a companion’s twice venerated, maker’s chosen sworn sister.



It was poorly implemented in DA2, as if each of your companions has no pride and self-esteem. As if they don't have their own views and opinions. It looked strange and stupid to me. They didn't leave even when there was maximum disagreement. Worst of all, you might have started romance with them. It was funny just to watch Anders and Fenris. Fun interaction.

My opinion is that rivalry is good, but only if it reflects correctly on the relationship between you and your companions.


I don't speak english well, but I try my best. Ty
Joined: Nov 2020
T
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
T
Joined: Nov 2020
Originally Posted by Tuco
Whoever read this forum for the last month or so may have noticed that I hate the current control scheme in BG3 like few other people on the planet (see signature), but among all the possible choices DA: Origins is possibly the last one I'd pick as a model of how to improve things.
Examples like PoE 1 and 2, Pathfinder Kingmaker or Wrath of the Righteous would be so much better.

Not really too much related with the topic at hand, but: I also installed DA:O few days ago and man, it was ROUGH going back to it after all this time. I didn't realize how much old it looked by modern standards.



How about Neverwinter Nights 1 in regards to diplomacy? More referring to how you can talk to an ice dragon and have an in depth conversation without it trying to kill you.

With DA it's like... you just fight it? Though I do like how you talk to the OTHER dragon with that cult (but it's classic "evil" so meh). But what about the MAIN dragon in the game? I also like Logan's personality when you really examine what he's doing, but the game won't point it out for you. He does what he does because he's afraid. While Alastor only wanted blood and vengeance. Unfortunately they kind of drop the ball and don't reintroduce them after the point you decide their fates. Feels like there should have been a very difficult but not impossible compromise option. Considering they're kind of on the same side in the grand scheme of things. I would have liked to actually take the grey warden himself down a notch or two with challenging him about what he does. How he outright murders a family man just for not joining.

If we're looking at things from a diplomatic/challenge the other people level then look at how the first Deus game does it (NOT human revolution. The FIRST one). You outright go "You did this. Why did you do that. What are the options. Why take any side at all. It's complicated and we're all working together even if I'm also having to go against you." It's because even if the game has sides it focuses on challenging people individually. Key word. Challenge. The dice roll system is supposed to represent that. But it's losing something in the process.

Some games have different speeches depending on wherever a roll will succeed or fail. Which means having to know what is said before the roll. The only way to work that in is to add a new speech after a roll (that you can't roll on) that states "Success" or "failure". This way we'd know if we say the RIGHT things or the WRONG things. Wording is extremely important. Are we supposed to pretend we say things emotionally and out of control on failed rolls when it has the same words? Numbers alone just aren't showing this.

I like DA. But I much prefer BG2. Both have a similar way of exploring the world. BG2 however, even if dated, does it in a much more "multiple approach" way. With much more going on in locations. Which also have various outcomes depending on your decision. DA is more like "Point A and options A or B" and that's basically it. It's not as "complex" compared to how BG2 does it. Verdict is still out in regards to 3, due to being a very unfinished game. So far, as it stands, bit too "black and white" for my liking. Hopefully that will change once we get to Baldur's gate itself.

Last edited by Taramafor; 19/11/20 05:34 AM.
Joined: Nov 2020
A
Ari Offline
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
A
Joined: Nov 2020
It would be amusing, getting to see the voice actor stutter and stumble over their lines whenever they fail a persuasion or deception roll.

Last edited by Ari; 19/11/20 05:51 AM.
Joined: Oct 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Nyloth
Originally Posted by Ari
When it came to DA2, I remember being fond of the rivalry/friendship relation meter. Sure, it did lock one out of chasing off companions, outside of specific events, but it did give me reason to keep people around whose boots I did not find so tasty.

It also meant I could progress a relationship without having to be a companion’s twice venerated, maker’s chosen sworn sister.



It was poorly implemented in DA2, as if each of your companions has no pride and self-esteem. As if they don't have their own views and opinions. It looked strange and stupid to me. They didn't leave even when there was maximum disagreement. Worst of all, you might have started romance with them. It was funny just to watch Anders and Fenris. Fun interaction.

My opinion is that rivalry is good, but only if it reflects correctly on the relationship between you and your companions.
I'm not sure about this one, there's a pretty dramatic point in the game where one of your companions can abandoned you, as for the others, the game takes place over a very long period of time, during which it's pretty clear that your cadre has their own ambitions and goals they pursue completely unrelated to the Hawkes.

As for Rivalry and Romance I don't really see the contradiction. Human interaction doesn't function on a binary like many games reduce it to, moreover I've been waiting for a relationship system in a game that entertains the possibility that people can have asymmetrical relationships or dissonant views of a single person.

Last edited by Sozz; 19/11/20 06:32 AM.
Joined: Oct 2020
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Sozz

As for Rivalry and Romance I don't really see the contradiction. Human interaction doesn't function on a binary like many games reduce it to, moreover I've been waiting for a relationship system in a game that entertains the possibility that people can have asymmetrical relationships or dissonant views of a single person.


Not same plz. In DA2, you had to literally hate each other to start a relationship, not just "slightly disagree". Without the right amount of "rivalry" points, you literally didn't have enough hatred for each other. It's still was two sides, just opposite. To make it the way you want, you need to remove the "approval system". But for people who want to know for sure that they will have this ‘romance’, it makes all more difficult. The approval system gives you a guarantee, not a vague hope. That's why it's easier and more convenient.


I don't speak english well, but I try my best. Ty
Joined: Oct 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Nyloth
Originally Posted by Sozz

As for Rivalry and Romance I don't really see the contradiction. Human interaction doesn't function on a binary like many games reduce it to, moreover I've been waiting for a relationship system in a game that entertains the possibility that people can have asymmetrical relationships or dissonant views of a single person.


Not same plz. In DA2, you had to literally hate each other to start a relationship, not just "slightly disagree". Without the right amount of "rivalry" points, you literally didn't have enough hatred for each other. It's still was two sides, just opposite. To make it the way you want, you need to remove the "approval system". But for people who want to know for sure that they will have this ‘romance’, it makes all more difficult. The approval system gives you a guarantee, not a vague hope. That's why it's easier and more convenient.

Know for sure they will have this 'romance'? I think you're looking at this the wrong way, it shouldn't be something you expect it should be a consequence of roleplaying, I'm not entirely sure what you mean by guarantee, but it seems to be a lot like what I'm talking about with the 'gamification' character relationships
Originally Posted by Sozz
...This causes a problem, because your companions can like or dislike you, a whole system of min-max approval/disapproval gains take over from the role playing. Are you saying that because you believe it or because you want them to like you...


What I can agree with you is the situations in games where you are inconsistent with either your disapproval and your approval, few games think that point gains should contribute to the totality of the relationship they're part of, instead of a tug of war between two extremes,

i.e. a scenario where you are fully in favor of an altruistic apostate mage, your approval goes way up, then you learn he's also a maleficarum and host to a demon, your approval goes way down, in lesser games your relationship with that person will end up in the middle, near where you started, in a better game, these two states don't detract from the other.

Page 8 of 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Link Copied to Clipboard
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5