Unlike games like Fable and BioWare's own Mass Effect, Dragon Age: Origins deftly sidestepped framing its character interaction systems as a set of moral binaries. It's a subtle shift: actions aren't judged in absolutes, but situated in the larger social structures of the game. In-game characters -- complete with their own backstories and affections -- keep tabs on you, but only as a measure of your relationship together. It's a more nuanced system: being kind to a Chantry priest, for example, might net you points with Leliana, a former nun; but Morrigan, hunted and persecuted by the church, finds it alienating.
That web of competing loyalties is only amplified when it comes to Origins' major plot decisions -- good luck trying to keep Wynne from trying to kill you over Andraste's ashes, or Alistair from leaving your party in disgust when he finally confronts Loghain.
The problems, such as they were, lie mostly with the players. Depending on how seriously took their role-playing, these mechanics might give them a chance to really dig into each character's history, urging them to open up and divulge their secrets. Knowing more about a particular companion makes it easier to navigate sticky social conundrums, thereby earning you more affection, and thus unlocking even more conversations and abilities. If you play the Warden as a caring leader, Dragon Age: Origins happily locks you into a positive feedback loop.
But when viewed mechanically, games like Origins also espouse a type of cynical exploitation that's hard to shake. Positive character interaction is incentivized with extra skills and abilities, and Origins' comes dangerously close to suggesting that kindness is a way to manipulate people. Even more detrimental, perhaps, was Origins' gifting mechanic -- even the gravest offenses to your friends could be patched up with a bottle of booze or a nice necklace.
Again, the shortfalls of Origins character interaction system are largely contingent on the player, but the potential for those choices to get whitewashed -- because Origins is at its best when the Warden is consistently gaining approval, character interactions never seem significant. When the the stakes aren't high enough to make failure meaningful, it's a little too easy to sleepwalk through the Warden's budding relationships with his companions. And that's part of what worries me about Dragon Age II's new friendship-rivalry mechanic.
"What we're trying to do is torpedo the concept of 'negative,'" says Mike Laidlaw, the lead designer for the game, in a recent interview. Instead, "you either gain friendship or you gain rivalry." Friendship is a pretty straightforward concept, but rivalry is accrued by disagreeing with or antagonizing your companions. "If you're consistently saying, 'No, I disagree with the things that drive you,' you become their rival and they gain boosts, and content opens up as a direct result of that," Laidlaw explains.
As in Origins, companions that are friendly toward Hawke, the sequel's protagonist, are rewarded with boosted stats and unique abilities. In Dragon Age II, though, rivals are similarly rewarded with their own place in the skill tree. "The two are actually both valid: they open up content, you can have romances with your rival and they do provide those different abilities," Laidlaw asserts.
The friendship-rivalry dichotomy, with both ends equally incentivized, was designed to keep players from disengaging with the narrative in favor of manipulating their stats through approval bonuses. "It doesn't encourage you to act nicey-nicey if you don't want to," notes Laidlaw. "There's a valid path either way.
"And I like that a lot -- it's honesty [in role-playing]. And it is being able to have a consistent relationship instead of saying, 'Well, they're going to leave me [if I disagree with them], but I like them as my healer,'" he continues. "And I think it makes Dragon Age II a stronger experience over all."
I am worried, though, that the friendship-rivalry mechanic strips some of the tension out of Dragon Age II's character relationships. On the one hand, players are given the chance to role-play freely -- without the temptation of character boosts sitting at the "nice" end of the spectrum, players can react as they see fit, without fear of locking themselves out of new abilities and features. And the value of that freedom shouldn't be understated. On the other, BioWare has provided players a safety net -- they'll be rewarded with extra abilities no matter how they treat their companions.
I only got to spend a short time with an early build of Dragon Age II so my fears are speculative. But I'm disappointed by what the rivalry mechanic might imply: that Hawke can treat her companions however she wants, that she could force them into compromising moral situations without their being able to lash out. It's not that Hawke cannot or should not be spiteful, aggressive, or amoral, but there should be repercussions for her behavior.
One of the pleasures of the genre is being able to weigh choices; but I'm worried that in the Free Marches, all choices about Hawke's relationship with her friends weigh the same.
Contest:
4:00 PM on 02.28.2011
| 
And my Hawke will reflect that.
Of course, I don't doubt there will be dozens of people who disagree with me. I also don't doubt that they're the exact same people who complain about the morality system (which, to my knowledge, doesn't really work the way the complainers think it does) and how it replaces role-playing with good/evil min-maxing.
I played as a rogue with plenty of points in Coercion in DA:O, so I just looked at the emphasis on pleasing your teammates as just an extension my guy's skilled manipulation. He was the worst kind of hero: the kind that only sees the other members of his party as assets or fodder, depending on the situation. Not that anyone in the game noticed how I used them to buy time for my hero to escape when things were looking rough.
Could work. Sadly it still encourages players to go to extremes.
Future games will not refer back to the historical 'Hawke' in a gender specific way if Bioware has any sense. If it does, then (and only then) you can say one version was canon.
I don't think they have restricted themselves in the way that you have laid out here. I'm sure they are still able to have certain actions result in certain reactions, but it would simply have to be a system that goes beyond the friendship/rivalry mechanic.
The thing that bugged me about DAO is that if I was a dick to my teammates, I'd risk losing crucial party "roles" like a healer or tank. Sure, it makes sense from a narrative standpoint, but there needs to be an alternative to those characters, or you're pretty much screwed for battles where having those types of characters is a requirement.
Ex: On my very first playthrough, I killed Wynne when I first met her. And I had already built up Morrigan as a damager, so I got pretty irritated when I realised I'd have to turn Morrigan into a healer. I'm really glad I won't run into that kind of problem in DA2.
I don't think choosing the nice option gets you more nice points.
Still, I could be wrong.
I say, good riddance, now I can roleplay the kind of character I want (hopefully, if the choice is still between angelic good and comically evil I'll chuck the disk out of the window), without getting my gameplay ruined for arbitrary reasons. I'm all for meaningful consequences to meaningful choices, not ass pulls out of nowhere for "lol mature plot" value.
I enjoy bioware games but I will agree that their morality system really skews towards general, socially accepted ideas of morality.
I really enjoy bioware games but their morality system is really more of a popularity or fame meter. I'm still not complaining. I love maxing out the paragon / renegade options and watching the mayhem unfold.
Additionally, to Biowares credit that scene in Mass Effect 2 where the the Quarian on the citadel is being accused of theft by the volus and being harassed by the police officer for being a vagrant was pretty bad ass if you took the paragon options. I mean heres this Shepard thats supposed to be all goody goody and he physically threatens both the cop and the volus after they continue to harass the quarian after she's found innocent. Yeah, probably my favorite side quest of the game.
For example, in the demo, there are several times where you can talk things over or urge people to hurry. Given the circumstances, who is to say which is morally superior? Certainly, one approach is friendlier , but it could also be placing you in danger.
Lots of moral ambiguity, and I haven't seen anything that comes close to confirming that this won't be true in DA2.
The gameplay looks and feels tighter to me. I think combat's going to be much more fun. I'm just hoping the morality in this one doesn't just come down to save orphans or kill kittens.
@20 Sided Death, exactly. There was no right or wrong. There were three paths completely up to the player and they nailed it brilliantly. I wish Bioware could branch out and this friend/rival dynamic doesn't nearly go far enough. The world isn't black and white but sadly, Bioware seems keen to stick to this formula ever since KOTOR. Someone wake me when Bioware is done playing things safe.
And, to be honest, I found the approval metre to simply lead to meta-gaming, as unless you increase approval you simply miss out on content. So if going down a separate path gets you different conversations, set-pieces and abilities, that might make things quite interesting.
I do hope that goes for quests too. I want to be able to say to that old women "Fuck you, i've got a world to save, get your cat yourself from that friggin tree yourself!" without getting punished for it.
No, it sounds like you've been unable to save the entire crew and get the best ending because you don't know what the fuck you're doing. It has nothing to do with Renegade or Paragon at all. You fully upgrade the Normandy and pick the right people for the job during the final mission (i.e. an adept to do the psychic shield rather than picking a soldier to do it). Loyalty helps (again, nothing to do with alignment) but I think that's mainly for the person you choose to escort the people back to the Normandy.
It really calls attention to the fact that people don't have to like each other to work towards a common goal and with the way Dragon Age 2 sounds you won't be penalized for having thoughts of your own.. Like the aforementioned telling Wynne to shut her trap about your relationship..It basically opens you up to being a real human being who may like certain people but may not like others. In DA2's case you could tell Wynne whats on your mind rather then feeling forced to play nice because without being nice you wouldn't get a reward, which would be artificial. Man what I would have given to make Morrigan my rival rather then skirting around her rather.. inhumane.. sensibilities just to keep her around, I honestly think it'd be fun to have her rival you if you were given the chance.