Let's Discuss: The Approval System.

The da i system was pretty good. Just needs a little improvements

I think approval should be more focused on your choices in a few big events, and less on dialogue choices and quests that aren't important to the character. I think the player should normally get at least one companion genuinely pissed off.

DAI's approval system is IMO improved by using the trial that doubles disapproval. Its not perfect, sometimes it feels jarringly imbalanced, but without it DAI system is way too forgiving unless Quizzie is trying to be a jerk.

I voted to junk it entire. No more half-measures. If romances are going to be tied to some kind of approval system, it should be fully embraced as such. Call it an attraction system, from 0 to 100. Hell, call it an "I want to bang you" number.

Separately, if there are factions in DA4, there can be an affinity system, with a value per faction. The more stuff you do to help that faction, the higher your affinity. The more stuff you do to hurt that faction, the lower your affinity.

Keep the systems separate, so you can make the best roleplaying decision you need to resolve a quest without necessarily having to sacrifice a potential romance. Or vice versa.

The writers would still have the option to tie the two together when they make sense -- like you are romancing a city elf that's very pro-Solas and you do something that spoils one of Solas's little plans. If that has a consequence of making it impossible to romance that elf, so be it. At least it's logical.

But by having the two systems separate, the writers can also allow for decisions that impact one value, but not the other. Or have opposite effects, like decreasing affinity for some faction while increasing attraction for some companion.

I definitely feel the system needs adjustment in some way but I really wouldn't want to return to the friendship/rivalry system. The annoying thing with that is that you couldn't play a middle of the road sort of character because your companions had very extreme views and you needed to have them as well in order to lock them in or even to progress to certain stages of your relationship with them. Your character of moderate views could even end up having to fight someone at the end, whereas they would avoid it by either wholeheartedly agreeing with them or being in constant conflict. This latter aspect seemed very odd: they think you are totally wrong in your views, yet are still willing to stand with you, but you may agree with some of their views but not others and so lose their loyalty.

Also once locked in to friendship or rivalry, it couldn't change even though your views had. Anders was a case in point. During Act 1 I quickly earned his friendship because I was very pro-mage. However, in Act 2 my character started to moderate their views but Anders was already locked in so he continued to think I still was as extreme as him. By contrast I had seemed on my way to rivalry with Fenris in Act 1 but then it turned around just before the first lock in point. It then took me to just before the end of Act 2 to get him as far as the point on the scale where it would initiate the next stage of the romance and all the way until nearly the end of Act 3 before I got to the point where we had our reconciliation.

I actually think that it would be better not to see the reaction of characters to your decisions as a approval bar or as a series of messages on screen. If a character didn't like a decision you made, then they should be able to express this to you in conversation. You should even be able to justify your decision to them after which they either accept your explanation or not. This would give you insight into their character and allow you to moderate your behaviour if you wish to in order to keep their friendship, or continue as you always have and risk them getting upset enough to leave but this happens in the background, not constantly flagged up with ".....approves/disapproves".

If a companion has a personal quest that can progress your relationship with them either as a lover or a friend, I think this should not be approval based but given regardless. Then you can gain approval if you agree to it, or disapproval if you do not. Likewise, how you resolve the personal quest may result in approval or disapproval.

There were also certain sub-plots that I felt should not have been tied to approval in order to activate them. It seemed odd to me that you could not activate Demands of the Qun until you had a certain approval with Iron Bull, yet it seemed something that the Qun would have asked regardless of what Iron Bull thought of the Inquisitor personally. My decision was based on how I viewed the Qun and whether or not I wanted to work with them, regardless of my relationship with Bull.

In origins there's a convo with Alistair after redcliffe castle where he either yells at you (if connor or isolde die), or thanks you if you manage to save them both and how angry he leaves the conversation after is affected by your response and your [persuade] skill.

Interactions like that with your companions visibly reacting to what you do instead of just a approve/disapprove popup is what I'd like to see going forward, aswell as companion quests/conversations regardless of where on the scale you are, instead different depending where you are.

DAO was the worst in that regard,with the pokè-codex of each companion that kindly inform me which rock i had to use to feed their approval.

The friendship rivalry came across as "agree to disagree" in some cases, which made them think about their actions, which was a good thing, i.e. Merrill and Isabella but it didn't seem to work that way with Anders, which may have simply been a problem with the character. I made a conscious effort to rival him on one play through, simply because I was fed up with him thinking I totally agreed with his viewpoint. In order to achieve this I concentrated on criticising his decision to become possessed by Justice, which seemed a reasonable enough view on the part of my character whilst still being reasonably pro-mage freedom. However, the way it came across in conversation was that Anders thought I was against mage freedom. Well, admittedly I was criticising his free willed decision to become possessed but I definitely wasn't against mage freedom. So it does seem to have been a problem with the way the writers showed his reaction to being rivalled rather than necessarily a problem with the system itself.

That said, in DA2 in Act 3 post Arishok we weren't really saving the world so much as tying up loose ends. I felt that there were certain things that should have had the companions call it a day if you took them because it was so against what they believed. Take giving Fenris back to Denarius. By this stage most companions were locked in, so no matter what their disapproval might have been, it made no difference whatsoever to your relations with them. Sebastian had seemed on really good terms with Fenris and was meant to be a devout member of the Chantry, yet he apparently was quite happy to continue working with a Hawke who had deliberately sent Fenris back into slavery. Likewise, Merrill actually seemed really distressed by Hawke's action in doing this, but yet she still stuck around and, presumably, if in a romance with them, even continued it, despite such a terrible action on their part. Ditto Isabella. To my mind there are certain things that you just cannot accept and remain true to your principles and the action with regard to Fenris was one of them.

Referring back to my comments up above with regard to Iron Bull and his personal quest. On my first ever run I never got this quest. In between main quests, I continually clicked on Bull but only got "hi" and "goodbye". Then on completing the game and coming to the boards I discovered I had missed out on a major plot line. As it turned out, the difference between getting this quest and not getting it was one dragon hunt. That to me seemed ridiculous. Okay, so Bull enjoys hunting dragons. Actually if you didn't have him with you when a dragon flew past, you would never know from conversation that he was really keen to go after one. Plus I cannot see how the Qun would base their decision on whether or not to offer to work with the Inquisition on whether you humoured Bull in his personal desire to hunt a dragon. A similar thing occurred with Solas. If you want to boost his approval, just talk with him and let him indulge his ego by telling you of all the wonderful things he has done in the Fade, etc. (So I ended up being rewarded for something that I naturally would do anyway, which is talk to the companion until I ran out of dialogue for them). It did seem more like the gift giving of DAO in that respect. So by all means base approval on major decisions in the game but not have the means to "cheat" if your decisions go against you.

I haven't played DA2 so I don't know that system is. I like DAI but do some tweaks to it.