Companion Interactions and DA4

Love these, thanks for posting.



DA:I had quite a lot of content and I think it really helped this type of companion interaction. There are many companions with a good amount of dialogue, and often, there were investigative options that opened up after certain levels were completed. I found myself spacing out the content just fine over a very long playthrough. Players like agency, players like companions, and players like companion-related content, so I agree that BioWare should be open to the idea of DA:O's approach in regards to the PC initiating a conversation with a companion on the field. Realistically, they are going to have an opinion about the area anyway, so adding companion-related dialogue related to the area adds immersion. Such content could also add to replayability, particularly with main missions that become locked after completing.



The thing that I love about Party Banter is that it reveals so much about the characters and the world. There are conversations that Solas has with Vivenne that I could never have with them as the PC. There are portrayals of weakness, cunningness, bravery, and vulnerability amongst the companions that are not presented to the PC during their interactions. DA:I added quite a lot of intrigue into the mix with Solas, Cole, and Varric; much of their banter is used as evidence for enticing theories. So there's a lot of potential with Companions interacting with one another.

I'd suggest that when companions react to other companions story lines, the content is not restricted to just Party Banter. When Iron Bull becomes Tal-Vashoth, Solas has such a kind and compassionate conversation with him during a banter. Perhaps that could have presented itself at Skyhold, with the Inquisitor interacting with them as well (in the way of ME2's Jack/Miranda/Shepard conversation.)

The conversation itself pretty much revealed a whole new dynamic between them, so it would have been cool if that concept was explored.



I would personally prefer companions interacting with the PC during main missions where it may be expected, or even during their storyline missions. Any unexpected interruption presents an annoyance to the player, and that annoyance will just transfer to the companion who is interrupting them.




This is pretty interesting. Personally, I'd love to hear my companions opinions regarding Solas. I'm not sure how Bioware is going to write Solas' antagonistic role, but I assume that Trespasser's way will at least be thrown into the narrative mix - gathering information about him and learning about his past without actually interacting with him. So hearing our companions interpretations would be interesting. Solas is also an asshole, so I'd love to see their comments when they finally meet. Dorian calling Erimond a tool was hilarious.

Regarding minor villians - what if these minor villians aren't actually villians to some companions? That presents a lot of opportunity for companion interactions that affect the other three types listed above. Companion A disagrees with Companion B because Companion B doesn't want to act out on Villian A. Bringing Companion A on the mission to kill Villian A affects the character's arc and approval. Having these villians be personal to the companions makes things tighter, and depending on how it's executed, that could be a good or bad thing.

I will say that the most important relationship a villian has is with the protagonist that is against them, so BioWare should stay wary with that when thinking about this.

I really wish the series would have something akin to the support conversations from Fire Emblem. The party banter is sorta like this, but not exactly. I would like to see the Companions just interacting with each other without the PC present or the focus of it, in a cinematic cutscene to flesh them out more and their relationships with each other.

That, and I like to see more of the party members hoop up if you don't romance them instead. A lot like the A+ Supports from Fire Emblem, but without the Warden/Hawke/Inquisitor playing matchmaker like the Tactician does.
DAI had this with Dorian/Bull and to a certain extent Fenris and Isabela from DA2, but not as prevalent as I would like it to be.

Interesting thread!

1. PC to Companion: I've seen several people over the years saying how they'd like to have a return of Origins-style companion interaction "on the road", but most of them focused on romance-related content (kissing, hugging, etc.) Personally I'd rather have area-specific dialogue for companions, or even area-specific sidequests that are "missable", and help fleshing out the characters without necessarily impacting their whole character arc in the game.

2. Companion to Companion: Well, party banter is probably one of the greatest strenghts of the DA series, but there are still areas of improvement. First, of course, is remaking Inquisition's (bugged?) timer so that party banter triggers more frequently. I'd switch from a 10-20 minutes timer with a 50% chance of playing banter lines to a 5-10 minutes timer, with a 100% chance of playing lines. There would probably still be quite a good amount of lines that are not picked and that you can find in later playthroughs (assuming DA4 has the same amount of party banter lines as Inquisition, which had over 5 hours of them; but even if it's just 3-4 hours, I think there would still be some lines left unsaid). And as said, I would also love for the player to interject more in those companion to companion conversations, an element that I liked in DA:I and wished was even more present. Picking your character's lines and sharing your stance on whatever issue your party is talking about helps immensely for immersion, even if it's just a minor, totally inconsequential decision.

Companion to PC: Companions interrupting you during your wanderings is something that, I think, only seems to have disappeared since Origins, when in reality these kind of interruptions have evolved into fully-fledged cutscenes or devolved into simple ambient dialogue, according to the importance to the plot. Still, it wouldn't hurt to have several interruptions that are neither cutscenes nor ambient lines, but your companion actually starting an "in-game" dialogue with you. An interesting way to add to this would be having your companions interrupting you after "gameplay-driven" decisions.
Making an hypothetical example set in Inquisition, imagine your Inquisitor having become a Knight-Enchanter, bringing Sera with you, and suddenly you swing your magic sword, making short work of your enemies: after the combat is over, Sera comes near and shares her distress and fear over this form of magic she's probably never seen before, so you can either reassure her, joke about it or tell her to deal with it and don't bother you; alternatively, you could bring Vivienne, and instead she stops you to offer advice about Knight-Enchanting, and you can either accept her counsel or not. Again, it's a collection of little things that, put together, would greatly help in character interaction or just generally immersion.

Companion to Villain: Well, this is the most difficult to talk about simply because we don't know who the villain(s) will be. Solas could very well be a red herring for the actual villain(s), but if he is the actual bad guy, my theory is that they'll probably go two possible ways: one is making the relation between Solas and DA4's main character a "personal" one (cue Fade observing, dialogues in dreams, etc.), so that companions can't offer much input on it. The other is going the Loghain way, which is the villain having actual interactions with the main character only at the very beginning and at the very end, showing his progression and how his plan is working out in the story through cutscenes, or word-of-mouth from other companions and minor villains. This last method could leave ample space for your companions to chime in and give their opinion about Solas, his plans, ancient and "current" elves, and such.

When I started this thread, I mentioned that something sirpetrakus said was part of what prompted me to start this. I'll repeat what he posted below with the caveat that I do not agree specifically with many things he says







Now I have not yet played Mass effect series so I can't speak to the accuracy of his recollection on ME2, but what this brought to my mind was an absence of conflict between the Companions and between Companion and Player in Inquisition. Any team of individuals, much less one to whom the adjectives 'rag-tag' and 'scrappy' applies, has some conflicts that give all the members flavor. In Inquisition, the issue in looking back was that the conflicts were too few and too muted in my opinion. Part of that stemmed, no doubt, from not wanting the Player to lose access to content carelessly. With more content linking to Companions in DA:I than ever, that's an understandable concern. It doesn't have to result in Companions that offer little to no conflict or spark. A few old tactics and some new ideas could be used in DA4 to make conflict an enjoyable part of the content for a wider range of players. Here's some thoughts in no particular order.

1: The band needs to be hard(er) to keep together. A group as diverse and motivated as pretty much any group of adventurers is going to have conflicts and divergence of interests that cause friction. Even with a hole in the sky overhead, it seemed that everyone else BUT the Inquisition could actually have infighting. The Advisors started out contentious with arguments over which group to approach first based unsurprisingly on their past experiences. Doing so gave the Advisors depth and revealed some background in a more interesting and efficient way than the standard interrogation sequence. That could easily have been leveraged with Companions as well in Inquisition and should be in DA4. The Player could get big dings in approval for certain big choices in Inquisition, then turn around and claim something completely counter to that decision to a Companion to neutralize the effect. Or the Inquisitor could agree with everybody and just get some easy, cheap approval without consequence. Making it impossible (or better, impose a penalty) to do one thing then say the opposite would be a good start. Having Companions who actually seem to communicate with each other and ding a Protag who is a damp dishcloth would be another tact. Pulling all the dialogue that was safely tucked away in the maximum disapproval dungeon and spreading it across a range of disapproval levels insures that losing some Companions means more content, not less. Above all, keeping your Companions at least relatively happy (or appropriately cowed) becomes a game with choices, benefits, challenges, and results. That is what is being built after all. 


2: A range of responses makes approval more rewarding and disapproval less unimaginative. In the Good Ole days (which, yes were that Good but not that Old and were mostly Nights for me ) the only way Companions dealt with conflict with the Protag was to ragequit and between each other was to drop gloves and fight to the death. 14 years later, Companions largely weren't allowed to have real issues with each other and if there are issues with the Inquisitor there's maybe ragequit. Maybe it's time to apply some graduated responses across several different options instead of just one that acts as a massive disincentive? Start with something pretty cheap: words. In the GOD (not GOG but pretty close), there was a companion character named Edwin Oddesseron (but you may call me Sir). He was pretentious, self-important, and an all-around ass (he was also an exceedingly powerful wizard which contributed to all the previous qualities. The reason I bring him up besides nostalgia is that even his basic acknowledgement sound queues reflected his haughty personality to the Player. What if the sound cues of each DA4 Companion became more haughty, short-tempered, sullen, whatever fits as their disapproval with the PC increases? The opposite could also be true (and was one cue when you completed a romance in BG2 IIRC). Between Companions, words need to flow between Companions both in the field and in 'Camp' that illustrate actual changes in the relationship between the Companion as it evolves, grows, or deteriorates. Except for the lack of conflict and deterioration in these relationships, I thought the writing in Inquisition was largely high quality. There were some Companon pairs that didn't work so well but there were some clashes that really could have been fun with more of a punch-up. Vivianne and Cole is one of my favorites (and, not incidentally, a good illustration of conflict without violence). If you haven't enjoyed that one, Cole does his usual mind-reading thing except in Viv's case, it exposes some weaknesses and even some corruption while she is part of the Inquisition (wish we could've followed THAT up). Instead of floundering, Viv pulls out the proverbial knife and drives right at Cole's role in the White Spire murders and subsequent chaos. It is an awfully beautiful piece of work capped off by a cry of horror from Cole: "You don't NEED protecting!" Unfortunately, that's also it but it does do a great job showing off just how Madame de Fer got her name and just how dangerous the knives that don't murder are. On a less dramatic plane, there's the relationship between Bull and Dorian. They should be natural enemies and there is, of course the sniping, but Bull throws Dorian off with flirting. Knowing could happen in Treesspasser, maybe this was a plan all along, but that really doesn't matter. Bull disarms Dorian whether honestly or dishonestly which illustrates how he is far more dangerous in his 'Just another head smasher' role. Also exposes that Dorian may not be as cosmopolitan as he lets on. Another route for feedback/reward on approval/disapproval would be bonii and/or malii like out of DA2. If the Protagonist has a certain level of approval with the Companion, a positive game bonus will, of course, encourage the player to adventure with him/her more. A malus likewise may encourage the Player to avoid another Character that they just are not in-synch with. Further, like the bonii for higher approval in DA:O, the bonii and malii could grow with the changes enhancing the feedback. Pushing this idea further, Companions could also affect certain bonii or malii when adventuring together making the interpersonal game a bit more interesting. Finally, if the Player is at the point of showing a Companion the door, give them something appropriately acid to say, something better than just 'Get out!" If we are giving someone the boot, it needs to be in style.


3: Conflict between Protag and Companion or between Companions can enrich other types of game content. I've mentioned this one before, but what kind of effect does not doing a Companion quest have on the relationship? In the previous DA games, it's just been a missed opportunity. You don't get bonus stuff and miss out on some big approval. What if skipping though can actually cause a negative effect? For some Companions, just skipping on something important to them could be disasterous, even fatal. I mentioned this in another thread, but what about another Companion competing in your romance? Or sabotaging it due to low approval? How about if a given Companion doesn't want you to do a certain side quest for some personal reason? How can that change the dynamic in a group or a game? 


I'm sure I'll come up with more later, but this looks good to chew on from now. Thanks to sirpetrakus for the inspiration. Even if this doesn't get into DA4, maybe it will get into a game you will like.      

The only thing I really think is that the friendship meter or whatever should go away.

My apologies for getting behind on replies.




Thanks and sounds like my 'exploration' conversation points. Bioware did play with this idea some in Awakening then again in Trespasser but I think a more complete conversation with similar impact as in the Camp/Castle could be doable.




On the other side of that is DA2 where you can finish all the Companion chatter for an Act in just a few area transitions and you can always tell when you take a new member out because the dialogue spills out like water over a dam. We may see them go back to a geographic trigger of some sort maybe with a little intelligent detection for how much free convo they have left so you aren't blowing convo 13 out of 16 only halfway in. Another reason I admire game writers even when things don't work write: if this were just a novel, then you wouldn't have to worry about some readers blitzing through while others go slow. As for Player interjections, I am of two minds. My first thought is anything that increases the Player's agency in the game is an enriching thing but then, too many makes your PC seem like a busybody and throws the timing on the voice acting between the Companions. So in the end, I think maybe only a few more interjections with the option to 'Stay Silent' which was given in some conversations and should see more use, honestly.



Agreed, but we all need to be careful even as we're playing without any budget constraints or QA meetings or all that. DA4 is unlikely to have more VA that DA:I in my opinion. In fact, I have a feeling we'll actually get a little less bulk minutes of VA. That means any of this will be best fit into an ongoing narrative instead of one-off type discussions. Your example, I think fits but it would be best if it applied to any mage specialization.



Which is why I talked about having a Companion tangled with a minor villan. While I have no doubt Bioware will try to make Fen'harel much more connected to the Protagonist than Corypheus (low bar, I know), I still think a couple of good, recurring minor villans could give the adventure life it lacked in DA:I. Entangle them with a Companion (Samson and Cullen were a better pair and example than Calpurnia and Lelania) and there's some good hooks for some back-and-forth before combat. Thanks for your time and thoughts.

I think there should only be choices, and companions responding realistically to those choices. Real people don't have a meter you can fill up to make them be okay with you, for example, slaughtering a bunch of kidnapped elves in exchange for 1 point in Constitution.

I pretty much agree with this. I find it ridiculous that you can do something that is morally repugnant to a companion but if you have already built up a sufficient number of approval points then it has no significant impact going forward. At least there were some instances of an action impacting negatively no matter how good your relationship was before: Dorian breaking up with you if you kill the guy blackmailing him springs to mind. However, there were not enough of these and since it is pretty easy to play the hypocrite, saying one thing to their face but doing another when they are not in your group (only major decisions impact on their approval whether in the party or not), it was easy enough to manipulate the system.

Conversely, I hated the fact that Leliana was locked into the ruthless path by one instance of inaction which could never be reversed. Role playing my Dalish (spy), who was unfamiliar with human ways and there to study them, felt it was not their place to interfere in Leliana's decision over a spy in her ranks and they would learn more by watching what she did. After all, they were not yet her superior so it wasn't their place to tell her what to do. That was it. Now she was locked in. Subsequently, I took the "correct" actions that would stop her becoming ruthless but it didn't matter because of me fully role playing that first decision. I wouldn't have minded but later I gave Leliana a direct order as the Inquisitor, and thus her commanding officer, not to kill the Chantry spy and she not only ignored me but continued to take further actions that I did not approve of. Yet, this had no repercussions on her. To me it should work both ways.

At least in DAO there were some decisions you made that were definitely a breaking point immediately for your companions, even to the extent of having to kill them to defend yourself from them but otherwise they just left your party regardless of how high your friendship scale was. I was maxed out with both Alistair and Morrigan but when I made a decision they did not like, they left the group and that was fair enough. I was also happy to live with the consequences of my decision.

Well I asked for it. Quite a lot to unpack here running across several different threads.



I won't delve into why I thought that would be a suitable crisis point for that particular character in this discussion since its just an example. Singular crisis points should be very rare and should go to the core of the Companion's values in any case. Further, not all crisis points (or...elevation points...apotheosis points? it does seem to beg for a term, doesn't it.) should result in an immediate break from the party/suicide attack. I will point out that Companions should mirror beings who do have different value systems and personal foibles that can cause them to make decisions outside of cold rationality.



Lots to unpack. First, 'filling up the meter' is exactly that history I was talking about. Some people build up trust (or grudges, something that should definitely be explored more) slowly and some more than others. They remember when you back them up when their backs are against the wall and when you undercut them in front of their friends. Some of them trust quickly and are quite open and some take a long time to unwind. I remember the first discussions I had with Sten in DA:O in Camp and I went into what was, at the time, the typical so tell me about yourself and got the then unheard of 'No.' Sten you had to puzzle out in part from his discussions with other Companions at first and many of his likes were counterintuitive until you understood Qunari society and philosophy better. Trying to keep track of that with simple switches over a longer period of time would be a nightmare for programmers especially if you wanted to include the possibility of partial credit/demerit instead of just yes/no. Even if it is entirely internal, a history meter is like a total scorecard is a lot easier to handle than trying to account for every single trick individually. As for rewards, in Inquisition high enough approval opened additional dialogue, War Table missions, and quests directly related to the Comnpanion. It doesn't require any 'peak' value nor should it. As you say, there shouldn't be such a meter visible to the Player. If you don't find additional content related to the Companion to be a just reward, what would you consider worthwhile? I know I've got a topic floating around here with a whole range of Player rewards you could raid or add to if you wish.



If you want, like I do, more multi-dimensional, realistic Companions (and not the flat pastiches like your example), you have to give them memory and a range of points of reaction based from that. Using an accumulator is much more efficient than a tracking a set of conversation switches especially as the number of possible responses and conversation points increase. If you have that, though, you'll also need some kind of less ambiguous feedback mechanism because, unlike real life, the Player doesn't get to spend weeks in Camp/Castle experiencing all the little tics and interactions that let a receptive person know someone is pleased or displeased with them. Is it imperfect? Yes. Is it replaceable with single point conversations with only immediate reactions? Not hardly as I see it.



Again, the only consequence of poor approval shouldn't be break or die. That was part of the point of the long post about conflict. Conflict between PC and Companion (and Companion and Companion) can be the source for so much more interaction and opportunity, but triggering that from one conversation choice (with rare exception) or with a series of conversation switches is simply not a workable solution without making some, if not several sacrifices. While I'm not doing much agreeing with you, I thank you for your time and thoughts.

my choice

I will answer each of your questions in a separate post, otherwise it will be too long.


if i understand you correct. I am not a native speaker. It is very easy to help out.
I don't like timer after all. why use them?
It is better to link the conversations with specific locations. Then you can make sure nobody walk in and end the conversation. And you can make the conversation more meaningful, if it have something to do with the location.

It's difficult. (psychology)
Let us take Cassandra as an exemple.
She founded the Inquisition with leliana and therefore it is realistic that she will not leave immediately (there you could build in warning levels). But every person has a breaking point.the only exceptions are psychological reasons.
a normal person would react something like this:
you have normal things you do, Which are positive or negative (you rise or fall in favor)
then there are no goes and rescue situations (crisis and apotheosis)
there are situations that are bad or good, but do not necessarily lead to breakage or love if you behave correctly.
And if you break and then doing some rescue situation or the other way around, you begin at zero again.
warning levels can be screaming, crying, violence, self-harm, silent, ignoring and so on.
back to the example:
Cassandra stands in the council of war and yells at you. if you don't have the right arguments she goes, otherwise she stays. Or she could ask for a duel. maybe on lower points she puts you to the talk. Like she does with cullen. but also cassandra must have something that she can't stand. This is the crisis.

For alistair is it that you let the murderer go.

As you mentioned every person is different. It would cost much to make an individual psychology setting for each person. Also the reason why Hawk failed in DAI. a bar is too simple. you need more factors and those to program (sighs), no idea I'm not a programmer.