Do you want Influence/Relationship-system appeared in the game ?
What should this system include ?
The in the poll proposed system seems to be the typical Bioware 0-100 Influence System. I find that this would be too simple. I would prefer if the game tracked your actions and dialog choices in some way.
That way companions or NPCs could possibly react to the fact, that you tend to act towards the same goals as they do but they might not like your means.
I realise that the overal way a character sees you will probably be tracked in some overal stat. But they could retain information of how they got there.
Maybe you kill an important NPCs friend and then go on to do a lot of things that the NPC aggrees with. The fact that you killed his friend should not be forgotten at some point because you gained enough positive influence.
But if the game is anywhere near the size as I expect it to be, tracking personal relationships with every NPC would seem impractical (especially the villager kind NPCs). So in addition to a influence system that tracks your actions I want a reputation system that tracks your actions.
I wish for something along the lines of Fallout 2. You rescued some village and you got a reputation as rescuer of that village. You went to New Reno and went for a career in the adult film industry and you got a pornstar reputation.
The fact that not every NPC knew of that Reputation added to the immersion as well.
NPCs should only be aware of reputations that they could realistically know of. Some old Hermit on a Mountain should probably not know that you were mean to all the little kinds in a village on the other side of the continent.
I'd like to note that, in my opinion, romances are the least interesting relationship a medium can explore. Media is absolutely coated in relationships based around romantic love and affection. Not that other relationship aren't given attention as well (friendship, family and hatred in particular) but I'm just not interested in another "romance" mini-game.
All of those choices sound interesting. I've always thought it silly how in some RPG's the NPC's will constantly disapprove of my actions but never actually do anything about it. It would be interesting if the NPC's had more of their own personalities and would actually try to convince me to do it their way, or perhaps even leave or try to stop me if they really feel that strongly about it.
I picked the "other" option too because in addition to party members who like and support me versus party members who hate and oppose me, I think it would be really interesting to have a neutral character like Kreia who actively challenges the player to consider why we're doing something (regardless of what we chose) so that we think about it more deeply and consider possible consequences that we might not have thought of otherwise. And of course it would be awesome if there were actually unexpected consequences that make sense but which we didn't predict when we made the decision.
It would be fun if you had some type of leadership/social perks/skills/abilities that would make you better equipped to handle dissension in the ranks and perhaps to influence npc's as well. A charmed merchant or employer could find it in his/her hearth to throw in some extra arrows in the deal or pay some extra for a mission well done.
I would also like to be able to turn this social interaction system off to experiment with impossible combinations of characters. Palladins with a priest of darkness, a priest of light together with a merry troll(or maybe all this social interactions just doesn't do it for me).
I don't think working in a brothel would make the game darker, just a helluva lot sleazier lol, no problem with burnt bridges but i also agree that any arbitrary system where giving someone a compliment results in +5 points, over or under the hood, detracts from realism.
Point being IRL you can foster a freindship over years of mutual selflessness (simplification I know but bear with me), alternatively some people just seem to click and can get on fantastically over a single pint. Regardless though, a few thoughtless words can change things irrevocably, I would like to see a snakes and ladders like influence system with shortcuts and pitfalls.
I would also like to meet a contrary character for whom positive/negative influence is not gained/lost by simply picking the "nicest" option but rather by reading between the lines, perhaps listening to the tone of the VO and then deciding what the character/person really wants to/needs to hear. Perhaps going for the "needs to hear" results in the character falling out with you and then latterly reflecting on the conversation and deciding you truly do have their best interests at heart etc.. (I think there may have been something like this with Viconia in BG).
Again I realise there is a realism/fun debate within here somewhere and people may not like my "snakes and ladders" proposition as it may feel unfair, but with a high standard of writing and perhaps a better implemented apology/gift system it could work really well.
note: I personally felt that the DA:O gift system was horrendously tacky.
Edited by Jobby, 15 January 2014 - 01:59 PM.
I voted for a complex relationship/influence system. The companions and NPCs reacting to you is great for replayability and just simply makes a game more fun!
For me it's essential that NPCs and party members reacts to my actions in a nuanced way.
For example there might be a companion who is with me only for our common goal, but don't like me for my personal opinion (religion, faction, chosen dialogue-options) or my actions. His logical behaviour is respectful but not kindly. So I have to be aware not beeing stolen from or even being murdered after reaching the goal. Of course there should be hints in the dialogues, that things are changing between the characters (in case the stats of the char are good enough to "see" such things).
I dunno I am undecided. I like the fact that if I insult Boo, (but who would?) Minsc will be displeased with me, or maybe even refuse to travel along with me. I also want to see enemies who react to me in a different way other than gratuitous violence and wanton destruction.
But at the same time I don't want the system to limit me to accessibility and rewards/quests in the game just because I don't agree that Beldin, Silk, and Belgarath should go out and get plastered tonight.
Why not? Surely there should be some consequences for denying your party members their right to go out and get pissed?
I think he just literally meant that he didn't want to suffer sheerly from disagreeing. I don't think he was talking about somehow forcibly denying them their ability to go do as they please.
DA:O was a pretty good example of this. Did you be nice to someone? Morrigan would've liked to have not been nice to them, and solely for that reason, YOU CAN 10 DISLIKE POINTS FROM MORRIGAN! Sten wants to kill everything, and you say "ehh, we COULD do that, and then we'd be thrown in prison and wouldn't make any progress on the more important things at hand." Boom... Sten dislikes you now.
Which says something about both significant reactions to petty disagreements AND overly simplified "like points" systems, I suppose.
Another culprit of this was the TellTale Walking Dead Season 1 game. Don't get me wrong... I love that game, overall. But, there were a lot of things that were significant enough to warrant a notification in the upper left portion of the screen, according to the game code, but that were really quite meaningless, in practice. You basically had a meeting about people being frightened and having their own ideas about what course of action would make them feel better, and you're they're all "Hey, I think we should do this really specific thing, just 'cause that's what I'd bet my money on, and for no other reason!" And someone says "That's not really super reasonable. Maybe we should find a better reason to do THAT specific of a thing, first." Then, it kicks it to you, and you can say something like "She's got a point. We need to come up with a plan based on the info we have." And that first person's all "I HATE YOU NOW! YOU'RE RUINING MY LIFE!", like a hormonal teenager.
The game even kinda calls itself out on these moments. There's a character that's pretty much with you for most (if not all, depending on your choices) of the game. And, towards the end, he actually reflects back on things, and basically says "Hmm... you know, we may have disagreed on stuff, but those were kind of just petty squabbles. Whenever action was actually necessary, you proved you had my back and my interests in mind, even while I was being petty about you criticizing my baseless plans that didn't even have anything to do with the situation at-hand at the time."
I just hate when someone's like "I want to eat cake, 24/7!", and you're all "we don't have enough money to do that, unfortunately. Also, I don't like cake, but you're still welcome to cake." And the character is suddenly going to pitch a fit about that. You MUST like cake as much as they do, or they hate you, and if you don't say that everything they want to do, for any reason, is an excellent idea and should be done, they also hate you.
I know, it was tongue and cheek but yeah the DA:O was painful in that regard, It would have been far more logical for Morrigan to question why you helped/were nice to that person to then be able to give an altruistic explanation (which may result in negative influence) or a tactful "because it was in our best interests".
But i don't think we will have a problem in this regard as evil and good aren't defined by arbitrary "good deed/bad deed" mechanics (I think).
Edit: I only played the game once, (good) and Sten despite being an "Evil" character always came across as a greetin faced ungrateful git, they tried to justify his Evilness by his background but it came across more as "those big guys that live on the islands? Yeah they're all nasty bastards".
Edited by Jobby, 17 January 2014 - 04:52 PM.
Sometimes you're gotta do what you're gotta do. If you cater for your companions all the time, then you are simply a yes-man without mind of your own and do not deserve to be put in decision-making position. Unfortunately a lot of games are built this way: choose to agree with this guy or that guy and one of them is going to hate you after.
As far as DA goes, DA2 was a step in the right direction. You could actually disagree with companions and explain to them why they're wrong. They were still not happy, but they listened and understood. The only problem I have with friendship/rilvalry system is in the end they are almost completely the same. You still have the same events with slightly different dialogue.
Influence system should not restrict the player to be a yes-man, but there're gotta be consequences. Both for ageeing and disagreeing. Sometimes agreeing should have negative consequences, just as disageeing should pay off down the road. I think Obsidian had the right idea with AP. There were story benefits to both negative and positive reputations with people. I hope PoE adapts a similar system.
I like the reputation system as it's currently been presented. I also think companion relationship systems should have their numbers hidden; they're so closely bound to the narrative that turning them into something gameable ("Influence gain +6") kind of ruins them. I'm also a bit leery about having mechanical benefits to companion relations like in FO:NV or MotB or DA:O, as it pushes players to game the system. I prefer narrative consequences -- quests opening up or closing off, companions leaving or betraying you, or sticking by you even when things look really grim, and so on. Even better if some of these consequences are mutually exclusive; being able to please everyone is one of the most annoying ego-stroking tropes in cRPG's IMO.