The worst flaw in the Rivalry/Friendship system is the poor treatment it gives to the middle ground. So if you sometimes disagree and sometimes agree, it somehow ends up with much worse outcomes than if you are always agreeing or always disagreeing.
Even though a mixture of agreeing and disagreeing could sometimes be a sign of a healthier relationship than either of the extreme friendship or rival paths!
I think that's the best part tho. You can't maintain a relationship when you give off a lot of mixed signals. Why would anyone follow Hawke to the ends of the earth if they can't figure out how they feel about them
I'd say that it discourages players from sticking to their roleplaying. If you are a player who is inclined to keep all of your companions, sometimes you might need to metagame to make sure nobody becomes 'neutral'. Especially for Isabela, where you are basically in a race for points, in only one direction, before the end of Act 2. Some players will feel forced into taking certain companions on certain quests, or leaving specific companions behind, to ensure they get everyone on the right "points", not because it fits their roleplaying.
Although I do concede a part of that problem is that Dragon Age 2 lacks diversity in how you actually can gain friendship/rivalry, with all points tied to quests (either from dialogue within companion quests or your choices in main/side quests) and not enough branching conversations that the other games have.
It's a flawed system, but I still love it for what it tried to do, and I still have fun with it as it is.
I think it would definitely have benefited from having more ways for characters to express *serious* disapproval of Hawke's actions.
Maybe an additional relationship slider that tracks what level of respect they have for you independantly of the friendship/rivalry score, and if *that* gets too low they outright leave like in DAO.
Here's what would be cool to me, because I also really love the concept, alternate quest outcomes or dialogue options, for instance a "rival" might come up with a solution to solve a quest a way different than you, whereas a friend will add something to your plan, but those outcomes are locked behind whether they are friends or rivals. So you bring a rival along, they may sabotage your efforts if you go to far, but they then also offer a totally unique solution that you could go for. Rival might temporarily leave party and you can confront them about it later or something.
They kinda did this when you confront Quinten, if Gascard is alive and you have Varric in the party Varric kills him without letting you intervene. Same idea rivals could be wildcards who dramatically change your quests for better or for worse and friends could be people who reinforce your decisions for better or for worse.
>additional relationship slider
I was thinking how that's a good idea, like the DAO approval meter with the rivalry/other thing(I don't like friendship here, I feel like rivalry should still count as friends. Might be misremembering it in 2, but I still want to be able to call them my friend) but then
>respect
THAT'S a different thing, like you can like someone and not really respect them, and now that got me thinking to have a perfect representation of this, you'd need to have like at least a respect slider on top of the approval and rivalry/not rivalry ones, but also you can respect someone in certain ways but not others... Ok, I think 2 sliders is enough to get the idea
I get what you mean about wanting to still be able to call your rival a friend... fuck it, what say we have 3 sliders? One for respect, one rivalry and another for friendship. ALL THE SLIDERS!
I also feel like if we couldn’t have a way to befriend Carver before the end of act 1, we should at least have had a way to get him to the necessary rivalry level by then without having to just be straight-up dicks to him. There was at least one spot where I had to have Hawke be a truly unforgivable bastard to his only living sibling because otherwise I wouldn’t get enough rivalry points in time. I forget what exactly it was but I believe I may have had to blame him for Bethany. I’m fine with familial rivalry but there are lines you don’t cross.
I’ve always liked the rivalry system. Especially for DA2 where the characters are flawed in the way that they are.
Like for your Anders example. When I’ve played characters that have high rivalry with him it feels like a relationship of “I care about you, I’m invested in you, but bruh I think you’re becoming a terrorist and I’m not chill with that”. Merrill’s relationship I think is another well executed one, where you still care about someone deeply but you think they’re making wrong choices, and then by the end they’re kind of inclined to agree that they were making bad choices. I like the idea of RPGs having that kind of nuance, and not having to just “people please” if you want to feel like you have a relationship with the party member.
But to your point, execution isn’t perfect and it has flaws. I think your Fenris example is a great point of “this should somehow just be disapproval” rather than rivalry.
I feel like Merril got it covered if Marethari didn't go on and take a huge dump on the whole endeavor. Even without Hawke. But with Hawke and the protagonist plot armor - definitely.
I had no reservations against being undiplomatic and killing off the whole clan other than Merril won't like it.
I always viewed it as Merrill was correct, she just didn't get credit for her cautiousness.
- she scolds Hawke all the time when Hawke tries to talk down the dangers of blood magic
- she is aware that what she does is dangerous, that's why she ask Hawke to accompany her. And she is correct, Merrill and Hawke is enough to defeat the demon
- on the other hand, MArethari who scolds her all the time fucks up, and is possessed by a demon. Way to go girl!
In the meantime: working on an eluvian \_is worth the risk\_. If Merrill got enough support, and managed to fix the mirror, Hawke (and later maybe Inky) would have means to stop Corypheus and Solas.
It’s a really neat idea, but the execution wasn’t all there. That’s probably why they didn’t carry it over to inquisition. I think it could be cool to see again with some heavy reworks.
It’s not a perfect system, and the two examples you mentioned are the worst instances of its limitations. But I disagree, I think it’s vastly superior to Approval/Disapproval. And for the story that DA2 is trying to tell, it makes the most sense.
DAO’s system is so gamey and silly, that BW threw in the towel with the cheat DLC that allows you to boost approval for everyone. It doesn’t work because disapproval is a bad thing, period, regardless of the role-play. If number gets low enough, they leave. Particularly for characters like Alistair/Morrigan/Leliana where you have opportunities to affect them and change their POVs, the binary system feels tacked on.
DA2 is more intuitive, because it doesn’t punish players for being disagreeable. In fact it encourages you to lean into a role, because the worst thing a companion can be in the game is neutral on Hawke. Merrill and Isabela can become different people by the end of the game through rivalry. The characters may not like Hawke, but they like other characters that do, and so they have to learn to get along.
You’re reading too much into it. There are a few extreme examples like the ones you listed, but the overall idea of friendship/rivalry makes sense and I think most dragon age players (myself included) would say that it is a much better system than the usual “kiss up to your companions or miss out on content” system in DA:O or DA:I.
Not only do I completely agree with this, for me the Inquisition system was especially lacking.
The thing is that DA2 system allowed for pretty complicated character relationships, with natural fumbles due to them trying something pretty revolutionary while being rushed like crazy. The DA:O system was simple, but they built the character interactions to match that.
Then we have the DA:I system where they try to have those complicated viewpoints like Sera and Vivienne, but Jesus Christ if you try to have any kind of an actual discussion/debate about the subject with them.
I think the problem with the Fenris example is not the friendship/rivalry system, but the fact that they gave you an option to give a formerly enslaved person back to the person he escaped from, and then have that formerly enslaved person rejoin the party if you change your mind. That should have been a point where, if you hand him over, he’s gone, whether because Denarius takes him or because he no longer wants to associate with you.
Anders I will agree has some writing issues, mainly because the dialogue assumes that if he has high rivalry, Hawke must be anti-mage, and if he has high friendship, Hawke must be pro-mage. This kind of ends up erasing the possibility of being pro-mage-freedom but disagreeing with Anders’ radicalism and/or his relationship with Justice, as well as the possibility of being anti-mage-freedom, but still having a strong personal relationship with Anders. You can kind of game the system by being very intentional about what missions you bring Anders on and what you say when he’s with you, but the dialogue ends up seeming kind of inconsistent. But I think that’s a writing issue that could have been resolved if the game had more development time. As it was, everything had to be pushed out in basically one draft.
Fundamentally, the friendship/rivalry system is a cool idea because it allows you to have deep relationships with characters that aren’t strictly positive. But there’s definitely room for improvement from the way it was executed in DA2.
I'll say one thing: Having the Rivalry system in DAI would have made Sera SO much easier to deal with.
It's not perfect by any means, but if you only have an approval system, then you're forced to basically ignore any character building and play along with what everyone wants just to keep them present.
Yes! Due to the approval system, I have to be "nice" to Sera. If DAI had a system rivalry to DAII, I could criticize her infantile approach and behavior. I also think that rivalry with Solas - instead of disapproval - could be an interesting thread in Trespasser
It's not even always about hating a character. Maybe you like them, but you just don't like something they do, or think. Not always the end of the world. (Like the thing with Varric and Solas disagreeing about Cole.) But in almost every other RPG I've played, you have to kiss bootay to keep people that you disagree with.
>It's not even always about hating a character
I think the DA Keep on whether Hawke and Varric were friends or rivals puts it very well. If you were rivals the tekst states that while Hawke and Varric didn't always agree, they had great respect for one another
True, but also easier to deal with without breaking your own character's roleplay. For instance, if I want to Friend Fenris as a pro-mage character, I acknowledge that there are some missions that Hawke would probably go, "I should let him sit this one out; no point in antagonizing him". If I'm Rivaling him, than Hawke just figures, "He doesn't agree, but I'll ask him as a favor." At least Hawke doesn't have to break their own 'beliefs' just to keep Fenris from leaving.
There were sooooo many times when playing DAI where I was positively YEARNING for the rivalry system back.
Imagine playing DAI again and being on the rivalry path with everyone? Cullen, Solas, Sera, Blackwall, and Vivienne would have been especially interesting to playthrough. It would basically make it feel like a different game.
Agreed - would've been a perfect fit. Most of the characters in DAI have a good reason to stick with the Inquisition even if they don't personally like the Inquisitor. The system basically already exists with Solas.
I love the rivalry system and I hope they bring it back. I hate having to suck up to characters just to get cut scenes or not have them leave the party. It helps with role play immersion
I love the idea of the system but yes, there are some issues with implementation.
It sort of feels like they need at least one more axis. Like there are some things that Hawke can do that characters should just straightforwardly disapprove of and they should lose respect for Hawke. That should be distinct from \`rivalry' scenarios in which Hawke challenges their beliefs but overall they gain respect for Hawke. But of course having three distinct metrics would get really complicated, so that doesn't really seem feasible. I'm not sure what the right answer is!
I think the system is gr8 but has a few wonky moments like the fenris one, essentially it is meant to mean that you have made them realise there are multiple points of view and they trust hawle to talk straight to them.
Yeah, it makes little sense that characters will be very loyal to you if you disagree on everything, but less so if you disagree on some things. The system feels very gamey. But I guess the point was to encourage people to not always pick options that aligned with what the character you were speaking to believed.
Becoming a rival is more about challenging the character’s views rather than reinforcing them. It’s been a minute, but IIRC it goes something like this.
- Fenris: Not all mages are psychotic blood mages waiting for their chance, so stop acting like it.
- Anders: Not all mages are saints, and becoming radical in defense of mages isn’t good. Stop it.
- Merril: blood magic isn’t a good thing Merril, and chasing after that mirror is a bad idea. You gotta leave the past in the past.
- Isabella: You can’t keep running away from your problems, or leave on a fancy new boat. Take some responsibility for a change.
- Aveline: Everyone is out for themselves Aveline, including me. I’m not running a charity here.
- Varric: I don’t have time to be diplomatic at every turn, or sit around and listen to you babble on with your stories.
I did like the friendship/rivalry angle. Viewing it as disapproval is a bit simplistic, as a *true friend* would challenge someone's stupid/self-destructive ideas in hopes of them learning to be better, even if they might not like it. Of course, it makes less sense if Hawke is doing nothing but calling them a dummy to their face.
On Anders, while friendly Anders likes someone enabling his terrorist fantasies, maybe Rival Anders deep inside knows your anti-mage stance *is* right and maybe doesn't *really* want to let himself/Justice blow people up.
...and Fenris maybe just likes abusive relationships because he's so edgy? I've got nothing here.
I have always enjoyed the system. It isn't perfect but the concept is fantastic. I think some improvements could be made to represent the neutral/apathetic position but there is so much potential with it.
Rivalry is better than dissaproval imo. With rivalry, you have very opposite takes, but you respect eachother somewhat. But with dissaproval, they will straight up leave sometimes. Like, I hate anders in da2, but I bring him along because he's my party's healer.
I don't think the writers fully understood it either, for the reasons you describe. It's an interesting idea but the choices that get support are often just dickish.
Rivalry is disapproval. If you make decisions your companions disagree with, you will gain disapproval from them and eventually max out one way or the other.
What isn't making sense for you?
its actually neat feauture because it makes the player not to rely on save scum anymore. making your companion angry is positive now unlike in origins, people tend to reload save when they see -20 morrigan. in this game its actually okay to not coddle them. i wish this is still present in inquisition. having your companions angry in this game makes them leave.
The friendship/rivalry system was ingenious. There were a few bugs with it but it was an awesome concept and I prefer it HEAVILY over both Origins and Inquisition’s approve/disapprove system.
“I disapprove therefore I hate you and we’re enemies” is so childish. DA2 added the concept of there being profound depth to a relationship even when in solid disagreeance with someone. So many characters in DAI would have turned out better with a rivalry system.
I don't agree with this.
*Anders. His whole character arc is about mage freedom, and it just goes against his character to still support you if you constantly make choices against mage freedom.*
It is the case of being attracted to others, despite not agreeing on everything. It happens all the time.
That girl is an asshole. But I actually like having him around, she is fun.
The worst flaw in the Rivalry/Friendship system is the poor treatment it gives to the middle ground. So if you sometimes disagree and sometimes agree, it somehow ends up with much worse outcomes than if you are always agreeing or always disagreeing. Even though a mixture of agreeing and disagreeing could sometimes be a sign of a healthier relationship than either of the extreme friendship or rival paths!
I think that's the best part tho. You can't maintain a relationship when you give off a lot of mixed signals. Why would anyone follow Hawke to the ends of the earth if they can't figure out how they feel about them
I'd say that it discourages players from sticking to their roleplaying. If you are a player who is inclined to keep all of your companions, sometimes you might need to metagame to make sure nobody becomes 'neutral'. Especially for Isabela, where you are basically in a race for points, in only one direction, before the end of Act 2. Some players will feel forced into taking certain companions on certain quests, or leaving specific companions behind, to ensure they get everyone on the right "points", not because it fits their roleplaying. Although I do concede a part of that problem is that Dragon Age 2 lacks diversity in how you actually can gain friendship/rivalry, with all points tied to quests (either from dialogue within companion quests or your choices in main/side quests) and not enough branching conversations that the other games have.
It's a flawed system, but I still love it for what it tried to do, and I still have fun with it as it is. I think it would definitely have benefited from having more ways for characters to express *serious* disapproval of Hawke's actions. Maybe an additional relationship slider that tracks what level of respect they have for you independantly of the friendship/rivalry score, and if *that* gets too low they outright leave like in DAO.
Here's what would be cool to me, because I also really love the concept, alternate quest outcomes or dialogue options, for instance a "rival" might come up with a solution to solve a quest a way different than you, whereas a friend will add something to your plan, but those outcomes are locked behind whether they are friends or rivals. So you bring a rival along, they may sabotage your efforts if you go to far, but they then also offer a totally unique solution that you could go for. Rival might temporarily leave party and you can confront them about it later or something.
Ohhh, that's a really cool idea! That could work so well
They kinda did this when you confront Quinten, if Gascard is alive and you have Varric in the party Varric kills him without letting you intervene. Same idea rivals could be wildcards who dramatically change your quests for better or for worse and friends could be people who reinforce your decisions for better or for worse.
Yeah. Have it be on an actual graph Y axis is Approval Disapproval, X is friendship rivalry.
Exactly what I was thinking!
>additional relationship slider I was thinking how that's a good idea, like the DAO approval meter with the rivalry/other thing(I don't like friendship here, I feel like rivalry should still count as friends. Might be misremembering it in 2, but I still want to be able to call them my friend) but then >respect THAT'S a different thing, like you can like someone and not really respect them, and now that got me thinking to have a perfect representation of this, you'd need to have like at least a respect slider on top of the approval and rivalry/not rivalry ones, but also you can respect someone in certain ways but not others... Ok, I think 2 sliders is enough to get the idea
I get what you mean about wanting to still be able to call your rival a friend... fuck it, what say we have 3 sliders? One for respect, one rivalry and another for friendship. ALL THE SLIDERS!
Ok, if we're already going that far, we need like 5 more. I don't care what they are, but they need to happen
I also feel like if we couldn’t have a way to befriend Carver before the end of act 1, we should at least have had a way to get him to the necessary rivalry level by then without having to just be straight-up dicks to him. There was at least one spot where I had to have Hawke be a truly unforgivable bastard to his only living sibling because otherwise I wouldn’t get enough rivalry points in time. I forget what exactly it was but I believe I may have had to blame him for Bethany. I’m fine with familial rivalry but there are lines you don’t cross.
I’ve always liked the rivalry system. Especially for DA2 where the characters are flawed in the way that they are. Like for your Anders example. When I’ve played characters that have high rivalry with him it feels like a relationship of “I care about you, I’m invested in you, but bruh I think you’re becoming a terrorist and I’m not chill with that”. Merrill’s relationship I think is another well executed one, where you still care about someone deeply but you think they’re making wrong choices, and then by the end they’re kind of inclined to agree that they were making bad choices. I like the idea of RPGs having that kind of nuance, and not having to just “people please” if you want to feel like you have a relationship with the party member. But to your point, execution isn’t perfect and it has flaws. I think your Fenris example is a great point of “this should somehow just be disapproval” rather than rivalry.
Yeah everyone is brutal to poor Merrill but... they're right and she's wrong. I rivalmanced her.
I mean, at least unlike Marethari Merrill actually took precautions to prevent disaster.
I feel like Merril got it covered if Marethari didn't go on and take a huge dump on the whole endeavor. Even without Hawke. But with Hawke and the protagonist plot armor - definitely. I had no reservations against being undiplomatic and killing off the whole clan other than Merril won't like it.
I always viewed it as Merrill was correct, she just didn't get credit for her cautiousness. - she scolds Hawke all the time when Hawke tries to talk down the dangers of blood magic - she is aware that what she does is dangerous, that's why she ask Hawke to accompany her. And she is correct, Merrill and Hawke is enough to defeat the demon - on the other hand, MArethari who scolds her all the time fucks up, and is possessed by a demon. Way to go girl! In the meantime: working on an eluvian \_is worth the risk\_. If Merrill got enough support, and managed to fix the mirror, Hawke (and later maybe Inky) would have means to stop Corypheus and Solas.
It’s a really neat idea, but the execution wasn’t all there. That’s probably why they didn’t carry it over to inquisition. I think it could be cool to see again with some heavy reworks.
It’s not a perfect system, and the two examples you mentioned are the worst instances of its limitations. But I disagree, I think it’s vastly superior to Approval/Disapproval. And for the story that DA2 is trying to tell, it makes the most sense. DAO’s system is so gamey and silly, that BW threw in the towel with the cheat DLC that allows you to boost approval for everyone. It doesn’t work because disapproval is a bad thing, period, regardless of the role-play. If number gets low enough, they leave. Particularly for characters like Alistair/Morrigan/Leliana where you have opportunities to affect them and change their POVs, the binary system feels tacked on. DA2 is more intuitive, because it doesn’t punish players for being disagreeable. In fact it encourages you to lean into a role, because the worst thing a companion can be in the game is neutral on Hawke. Merrill and Isabela can become different people by the end of the game through rivalry. The characters may not like Hawke, but they like other characters that do, and so they have to learn to get along.
You’re reading too much into it. There are a few extreme examples like the ones you listed, but the overall idea of friendship/rivalry makes sense and I think most dragon age players (myself included) would say that it is a much better system than the usual “kiss up to your companions or miss out on content” system in DA:O or DA:I.
Not only do I completely agree with this, for me the Inquisition system was especially lacking. The thing is that DA2 system allowed for pretty complicated character relationships, with natural fumbles due to them trying something pretty revolutionary while being rushed like crazy. The DA:O system was simple, but they built the character interactions to match that. Then we have the DA:I system where they try to have those complicated viewpoints like Sera and Vivienne, but Jesus Christ if you try to have any kind of an actual discussion/debate about the subject with them.
Especially since some of the friendships in DA2 are just Hawke enabling self destructive behavior... Looking at the mages there 👀
I think the problem with the Fenris example is not the friendship/rivalry system, but the fact that they gave you an option to give a formerly enslaved person back to the person he escaped from, and then have that formerly enslaved person rejoin the party if you change your mind. That should have been a point where, if you hand him over, he’s gone, whether because Denarius takes him or because he no longer wants to associate with you. Anders I will agree has some writing issues, mainly because the dialogue assumes that if he has high rivalry, Hawke must be anti-mage, and if he has high friendship, Hawke must be pro-mage. This kind of ends up erasing the possibility of being pro-mage-freedom but disagreeing with Anders’ radicalism and/or his relationship with Justice, as well as the possibility of being anti-mage-freedom, but still having a strong personal relationship with Anders. You can kind of game the system by being very intentional about what missions you bring Anders on and what you say when he’s with you, but the dialogue ends up seeming kind of inconsistent. But I think that’s a writing issue that could have been resolved if the game had more development time. As it was, everything had to be pushed out in basically one draft. Fundamentally, the friendship/rivalry system is a cool idea because it allows you to have deep relationships with characters that aren’t strictly positive. But there’s definitely room for improvement from the way it was executed in DA2.
I'll say one thing: Having the Rivalry system in DAI would have made Sera SO much easier to deal with. It's not perfect by any means, but if you only have an approval system, then you're forced to basically ignore any character building and play along with what everyone wants just to keep them present.
Yes! Due to the approval system, I have to be "nice" to Sera. If DAI had a system rivalry to DAII, I could criticize her infantile approach and behavior. I also think that rivalry with Solas - instead of disapproval - could be an interesting thread in Trespasser
It's not even always about hating a character. Maybe you like them, but you just don't like something they do, or think. Not always the end of the world. (Like the thing with Varric and Solas disagreeing about Cole.) But in almost every other RPG I've played, you have to kiss bootay to keep people that you disagree with.
>It's not even always about hating a character I think the DA Keep on whether Hawke and Varric were friends or rivals puts it very well. If you were rivals the tekst states that while Hawke and Varric didn't always agree, they had great respect for one another
2 still has that problem though, because if your in the middle of the bar you still miss out on content.
True, but also easier to deal with without breaking your own character's roleplay. For instance, if I want to Friend Fenris as a pro-mage character, I acknowledge that there are some missions that Hawke would probably go, "I should let him sit this one out; no point in antagonizing him". If I'm Rivaling him, than Hawke just figures, "He doesn't agree, but I'll ask him as a favor." At least Hawke doesn't have to break their own 'beliefs' just to keep Fenris from leaving.
Right. You can't have your own opinion on certain issues because the character will be offended by you.
There were sooooo many times when playing DAI where I was positively YEARNING for the rivalry system back. Imagine playing DAI again and being on the rivalry path with everyone? Cullen, Solas, Sera, Blackwall, and Vivienne would have been especially interesting to playthrough. It would basically make it feel like a different game.
Agreed - would've been a perfect fit. Most of the characters in DAI have a good reason to stick with the Inquisition even if they don't personally like the Inquisitor. The system basically already exists with Solas.
I liked the idea of it, but the idea that if you disagree with someone so hard you hit a sweet spot is super weird.
I love the rivalry system and I hope they bring it back. I hate having to suck up to characters just to get cut scenes or not have them leave the party. It helps with role play immersion
I love the idea of the system but yes, there are some issues with implementation. It sort of feels like they need at least one more axis. Like there are some things that Hawke can do that characters should just straightforwardly disapprove of and they should lose respect for Hawke. That should be distinct from \`rivalry' scenarios in which Hawke challenges their beliefs but overall they gain respect for Hawke. But of course having three distinct metrics would get really complicated, so that doesn't really seem feasible. I'm not sure what the right answer is!
I think the system is gr8 but has a few wonky moments like the fenris one, essentially it is meant to mean that you have made them realise there are multiple points of view and they trust hawle to talk straight to them.
This sounds more like an issue you have with a specific scene than an entire system.
Yeah, it makes little sense that characters will be very loyal to you if you disagree on everything, but less so if you disagree on some things. The system feels very gamey. But I guess the point was to encourage people to not always pick options that aligned with what the character you were speaking to believed.
Becoming a rival is more about challenging the character’s views rather than reinforcing them. It’s been a minute, but IIRC it goes something like this. - Fenris: Not all mages are psychotic blood mages waiting for their chance, so stop acting like it. - Anders: Not all mages are saints, and becoming radical in defense of mages isn’t good. Stop it. - Merril: blood magic isn’t a good thing Merril, and chasing after that mirror is a bad idea. You gotta leave the past in the past. - Isabella: You can’t keep running away from your problems, or leave on a fancy new boat. Take some responsibility for a change. - Aveline: Everyone is out for themselves Aveline, including me. I’m not running a charity here. - Varric: I don’t have time to be diplomatic at every turn, or sit around and listen to you babble on with your stories.
I did like the friendship/rivalry angle. Viewing it as disapproval is a bit simplistic, as a *true friend* would challenge someone's stupid/self-destructive ideas in hopes of them learning to be better, even if they might not like it. Of course, it makes less sense if Hawke is doing nothing but calling them a dummy to their face. On Anders, while friendly Anders likes someone enabling his terrorist fantasies, maybe Rival Anders deep inside knows your anti-mage stance *is* right and maybe doesn't *really* want to let himself/Justice blow people up. ...and Fenris maybe just likes abusive relationships because he's so edgy? I've got nothing here.
I have always enjoyed the system. It isn't perfect but the concept is fantastic. I think some improvements could be made to represent the neutral/apathetic position but there is so much potential with it.
Rivalry is better than dissaproval imo. With rivalry, you have very opposite takes, but you respect eachother somewhat. But with dissaproval, they will straight up leave sometimes. Like, I hate anders in da2, but I bring him along because he's my party's healer.
I don't think the writers fully understood it either, for the reasons you describe. It's an interesting idea but the choices that get support are often just dickish.
Rivalry is disapproval. If you make decisions your companions disagree with, you will gain disapproval from them and eventually max out one way or the other. What isn't making sense for you?
its actually neat feauture because it makes the player not to rely on save scum anymore. making your companion angry is positive now unlike in origins, people tend to reload save when they see -20 morrigan. in this game its actually okay to not coddle them. i wish this is still present in inquisition. having your companions angry in this game makes them leave.
The friendship/rivalry system was ingenious. There were a few bugs with it but it was an awesome concept and I prefer it HEAVILY over both Origins and Inquisition’s approve/disapprove system. “I disapprove therefore I hate you and we’re enemies” is so childish. DA2 added the concept of there being profound depth to a relationship even when in solid disagreeance with someone. So many characters in DAI would have turned out better with a rivalry system.
I don't agree with this. *Anders. His whole character arc is about mage freedom, and it just goes against his character to still support you if you constantly make choices against mage freedom.* It is the case of being attracted to others, despite not agreeing on everything. It happens all the time. That girl is an asshole. But I actually like having him around, she is fun.