Dragon Age The Joyguard (formerly Hype Train) [Spoilers]

Two-axis is an interesting idea, I could imagine something like “Needs You” vs. “Likes You”.

With “high need + low like” being stuff like:
* needs you to accomplish a task (this mostly already happens in traditional approval systems)
* thinks you’re a trainwreck, but seeing that trainwreck makes them feel better about their own life
* is physically or emotionally horny for some dumb quirk the PC has, even if they hate the rest of their actions
* thinks you’re on the cusp of being converted to their point of view, and is highly motivated to proselytize

With the character leaving only if they have both low need and low like for the PC. Or maybe, to make it extra spicy, emotionally reserved characters might leave if they have high “like” but low “need”.

Unless you played a middle of the road Hawke, who didn't have extremist views or changed their views over the course of the game. Then some companions dialogue would not open up at all until you advanced enough on the metre either way. For some reason, on one play through, I complimented Merrill's eyes as a gentle flirt, I think it was in Act 1, and then forgot all about it, proceeding with my Fenris romance. Then in Act 3, the rivalry metre hit the point where the next stage of the romance should trigger and Merrill turned up on my doorstep seeming to think we were in a relationship. It may have been a bug but I think it had something to do with the fact that things only trigger when the metre reached a certain point. Then there was Isabella. If you didn't get that friendship/rivalry metre up enough, you never saw her again after Act 2. I discovered the difference seemed to be to flirt with her, which got friendship points, but then say you had changed your mind when she turned up for sex, because that was literally the only difference between having her come back or leave for good. Also I hated that you felt obliged to hit the heart icon to keep a romance alive and yet would have preferred choosing a different option because I felt that flirting wasn't appropriate at the time.

Still that was no worse than the difference between getting Iron Bull's personal quest or not was killing one dragon. First run, I didn't kill any dragons, I was a conservationist, and so never got the personal quest. Went back to just before the Arbor Wilds, killed a dragon and hey presto, now I've got the personal quest. Why should that matter when deciding on whether or not the Qun wish to work with me?

So actually I'd rather go back to something along the lines of DAO, split the dialogue between what is general and what is romance related, so I know that the latter is not interfering with my finding out stuff in the former category. That was particularly annoying with Solas, where I had to take the heart icon if I wanted to keep the romance going but that could mean I missed out on quizzing him about something. Mind you, I suppose with Solas that was appropriate as it was probably intentional.

I've discovered that is the case with DA2 now but the first time I played it I couldn't be sure. Likewise, I know it didn't affect some companions if you took it or not, which is why I mentioned Solas because there was one particular one, I think it was the first time with him in the Fade, where if you didn't you could lose all chance of starting it. I just found the DAO system easier to follow.

Now I never had a problem with Mass Effect with the blue and red interrupts, so may be they could do a variant on that.

To be honest, whilst I don't want to be constantly worrying if a person might leave just because my points metre isn't high enough, I wouldn't mind if something I did so appalled a companion that they felt compelled to leave or attack me for it. They did that with Leliana over the ashes and they did that with Anders over giving Feynriel to the demon. What surprised me was that if Hawke gave Fenris back to Denarius, they might voice disapproval but no one left over it or tried to stop you. By that stage in the game everyone's metre was likely locked in so of course friendship/rivalry points made little difference. He was participating in gambling/drinking parties with Varric and Donnick, he could potentially be sleeping with Isabella, Averline is the representative of law and order in the city, Sebastian has been showing a lot off interest talking with him, probably to convert him but still, slavery is illegal in the south, supposedly punishable by death, yet Denarius can walk away scot free with his prize and then we're back to business as usual. A fine bunch of friends they were to Fenris. So let them fall out with me if necessary not just over what I do to strangers but also what I do to their supposed friends/team members.

I have a strange, contradictory view on this, which is that (1) I also don’t want to feel that anxiety to suck up to party members but (2) some of my most memorable Dragon Age playthroughs have involved party members leaving.

There’s something really compelling about a hero who’s got such strong convictions (or glaring flaws) that they’re willing to sacrifice friendships for them. But as a certified non-hero, it’s hard for me to RP that. I often find myself sucking up, especially in my first playthrough.

I guess this is almost an argument for hiding approval? Though, Inquisition mostly hid approval, and it still felt too lenient (prior to the option they added in Trespasser).

But this is my issue with a lot of choice-based games to begin with, is that they offer these very extreme, difficult to justify options to the player for what often feels like giving me choices "just because." It feels like the illusion of depth and "meaningful decision making," when in reality it doesn't really make a lot of sense for my characters to make these decisions in the broader narrative or game thematically, other than just allowing me to be edgy when I'm bored on my 10th playthrough. I'm alright with a studio limiting the player's "choice" if it means not giving me options like selling my colleague into slavery and instead focusing on presenting the player with decisions that are more nuanced and thematically supported.

Like, yes, this is a dissonance between the writing and gameplay, but I do believe there are many ways to resolve this issue and personally would prefer the route which requires more intentionality in the options they offer to the player. And I think you can make an argument for players dictating the outcome of a game more, even if their actions seem extreme and ill fitting, but I don't personally think DA is the series to actually support that level of extremity when your decisions lead into one another in future games (or fail to lead into each other, depending on how you look at it). Like I think offering the player a ton of somewhat disconnected options at the time was considered a novelty, but I think we're probably at a point in gaming where we can hone in more on focused narrative now, without feeling like we've lost a lot because now we don't have the option to kill all our friends or commit genocide. 

And I'd also be alright with characters having a fallout with me, but I would love to see ways where this is supported more frequently gameplay-wise rather than just letting the player lose a lot of content and never see that person again, but that's just my opinion. I can see how the loss of this character can be argued to be enough of a consequence in itself, I just think there's ways to play up that drama and tension more, so that players are willing to make decisions that create fallouts rather than feeling the need to cater to each character's opinions. I think the friendship+rivalry meter was beginning to point at this, but obviously didn't reach that point yet in its development, which is why I hold out for someone borrowing some of the ideas it presents.

Hey guys - certainly feel free to keep discussing the ideas around Approval or Friendship/Rivalry here, if you prefer, but I've made this thread

bsn.boards.net/thread/18453/dragon-age-track-companions-actions

If you want to use that for a more specific discussion around the idea.

Oh mates, I’m sooooo frigging hyped for this game! I’m personally really stoked to find out more about the Evanuris (especially after reading a certain story in Tevinter Nights) and I hope that sense of almost supernatural dread is carried forward into the game.

I’ve also been rewatching the original teaser trailer for DA4 and I am in LOVE with the music! It has that soaring dragon age sound combined with a mystical and almost apocalyptic feel that I’m in love with! I believe it’s Trevor Morris? Here’s hoping the game score has the same theme!

There are times when it shouldn't matter one way or another what your approval metre is, what you do so annoys/offends/shocks them that they leave/attack/refuse to work with you any more.

Morrigan - 100% approval - refuse to do Dark Ritual - leaves you to sort out Blight without her.
Leliana - (never done this so must assume) - 100% approval - corrupt ashes - attacks you and you are forced to kill her.
Alistair - 100% approval - spare Loghain - refuses to work with you. If Loghain sacrifices himself, grudgingly admits you may have made the right call (if he was made king), otherwise becomes a hopeless drunk.

That is the sort of thing I am thinking of. Differing motivations why they took the action they did but you crossed a line and that was it, the relationship with them, in whatever form, was over. I was perfectly okay with that. I like companions that think for themselves.

Well I suppose the in world reason why people are going to be a bit careful about recruiting elves, if they know about Solas, is that they might be his agents. Still they could be agents of the Qun, in fact Tallis was an agent of the Qun, and yet apparently that didn't stop us, even though we may have just kicked the Arishok's ass and been attacked by hordes of elves supporting him. So may be they are keeping the elven input largely a surprise, apart from that one image. Come to think about it, we didn't see many dwarves either. Just that one image of an archer who was probably a dwarf.

One of the reasons I doubted that eight person picture was anywhere close to the finalised version of companions was that there were no obvious dwarven or elven characters in it and the majority looked human. If I am allowed to play an elf, I'd quite like to have at least one elven option for romance, preferably bisexual so I can keep my options open about the gender I play but I'm nothing if not adaptable. When my male Lavellan discovered Solas was off limits but Dorian was very much on the table (yes that was a play on words), suddenly all those old Tevinter prejudices didn't seem so important anymore. Well he did resist a little, I'm not that easy.

I know many people want a gay KISA. What about a gay elf KISA?

To be honest, after Solas, I may have learned my lesson about automatically going for the elf guy. I just have this thing about elves. In real life my name even means Elf War in the Anglo Saxon from which it derives and I looked willowy and elven when I was younger. I shall probably play it cautious this time round, though. May be I might even not play an elf.