Chris Avellone's Blog

A good article indeed. See how he shines when he is talking of what he excels.

 

As for influence system, Alpha Protocol had some interesting twists, which made me think that it may not be alway good to attract attentions of a certain people - I kind of felt as if the protagonist was stalked. I wished the themes were much deeper. However, thining of that, I'm not a great fan of 007 series.

Quote

 

The companion needs to ego-stroke the player in a variety of ways.

Oh how glad I am to read this.

 

A lot of people ask for companions who despise the main character (or something along these lines). What they miss, I think, is that if a companion really couldn't care less about the main character, he wouldn't really be fun to travel with. There'd be no arguements, no criticism (when I think someone's stupid, would I bother to tell them?), no witty banter.

...

 

 

Well, I don't want to be surrounded by yes-men and bootlickers.

 

My ideal band of travellers would consist of a fool, a joker, a nutcase, a freak and a prisoner (with stockholm syndrome). Of course they would all respect you in some way, but it would be in no way an all harmonious party. Too bad there are only seven companions to choose from, so these - in my opinion way more interesting characters - will most likely not be considered by the devs.

This was a very enjoyable read, thanks Chris.

I do have a few notes which I hope you'll read;

 

"The companion needs to ego-stroke the player in a variety of ways. Sometimes this can be romance, sometimes this can be simply reactivity (either brief barks or conversations about the player’s actions), or any of a variety of methods. Ultimately, however, any companion that simply sits around bitching, complaining, and haranguing the player isn’t someone you want to drag into the nearest dungeon to help clear it out… you may simply want to throw them in the dungeon and lock the door."

I don't feel like this counts for every NPC. Xan in BG1 was one of my favorites, and all he does is complain. Kreia in KotOR2 strokes your ego occasionally by telling you how important you are, but most of the time she's tearing you down. I even enjoyed Skie in BG1 who constantly bitches about how awful life as an adventurer is, though that's mostly because I enjoyed the sounding board of having a relatively normal person in an adventuring group (because really, it's a horrible life). A friend of mine mentioned during the olympics that we should have 1 normal person running along with the athletes, just for a comparison. Skie was that normal person to me

Err, anyway, "they don't all have to kiss your ass" was my general message here, though I'm sure you already have that covered.

 

Another point I actually feel more strongly about;

Companion's lives should not revolve 100% about the player character. In 90% of RPG's, companions live and die by their masters and drop whatever they want when their boss comes calling. They'll mention their sidequest but often happily drop it when they get told 'no'. Likewise, when they're not in the party they'll just stand about in a tavern, waiting to be picked up and in the party, they'll not antagonise NPC's if you don't want them to, you can completely dicate their life. I feel this usually doesn't do justice to the character.

I liked how, in BG2, Aerie and Haer'dalis had their own (doomed) romance because it didn't involve the player character (who probably had his own romance) and one of the few things I liked about Dragon Age 2 was that while not in your party, your companions would be out doing stuff (Aveline worked at the city guard, Anders would heal people at his clinic, etc). These are after all people, not robots you just pick up in some random dungeon (and PS:T taught me, even those can have more free will than that).

 

I really enjoyed reading what you wrote, it gave me new insights in character creation. Carry on, good sir, I will be following this blog closely!

nice article. I suspect that it is not easy to balance companions so that they are really useful / entertaining on one hand, but that you can also play the game and have fun without them.

Gann the Hagspawn was an awesome character, anything similar would be greatly appreciated in Eternity.

 

And since you mentioned influence - I personally hope to not see it in P:E. I think it ruins the immersion and makes me care a little less about the companion - Especially if there are "prizes" for high loyalty. Instead of caring about this character as a person, he becomes a tool I use to gain some bonuses or to "max out" the loyalty meter.

 

Im oke with influence and such things, if you make it invisible. So that game won´t show "You gained +2 influence to Jaheira". I would like if there were one implemented in game so that you wouldn´t notice it. It would just run in background. And at some point of the game you would notice that some things you´ve said few weeks earlier made somebody angry or etc. But i think that you ment the same thing. I also know how it is to hunt influence point for Khelgar in conversations and it sucks.

Great read Chris! Puts more perspective into the characters you have created that I have enjoyed playing!

Great post Chris, after reading your blog and trying to imagine the sorts of NPCs that you guys are planning to implement into Project Eternity I started to reflect on the NPCs that were available to you in the BG series (1 & 2).

 

I felt that due to the lack of interactivity in BG1 you are largely left with self exploration of the story and surroundings, whilst the supporting cast of NPCs simply felt overwhleming, with many crossing over into eachothers roles and therefore making it hard to find a happy medium when playing the game (for me there were a number that just never made the cut, even though I have replayed BG1 about 30 or so times).

 

This is quite jarring in comparison when transitioning over to BG2 as you end up with a much greater level of depth to each character, but the problem was (at least for me) that you felt somewhat gimped by the choices available to you with regards to party integration when considering the roles you needed to fill vs the interaction of NPCs with either your character or with eachother, sometimes leading to wanting to kill eachother or leave you party for good.

 

I would think a balance between these two would be the sweet spot to aim for with Project Eternity, by all means have this level of character depth, but leave the options open for other NPCs to fill the gaps that may be left should it not be viable to have certain NPCs in the one party as a cohesive unit.

One thing I worry about,

 

"Next up, figure out exactly where that character shines in terms of the game mechanics – why would a player bring this companion along? Are they a tank, a healer, or perfect for sniping enemies from a mile away? This shouldn’t overlap with another companion’s specialty if you can help it."

 

In the video you mention how a companion should be optional and you shouldn't feel the need to have to take that character. To me this clashes a bit.

 

For example, in Dragon Age: Origins you had the ability to take your companiions and shape them toward what you wanted them to be. You could take Morrigan and if you wished give her some healing spells to make her be the healer in your party instead of having to take Wynee along, even though morrigan is geared toward shapeshifting and wynee toward healing when you first get them, over the course of leveling you had the ability to shape them into what role you wanted them to have.

 

Then in Dragon age 2 they got rid of this, and made the companions have certain unique skill sets. If you wanted any healer in your party and you yourself weren't a mage/healer, you HAD to take Anders. Even if you didn't like the character (I didn't personally) you had to take him. You could no longer take another mage companion and shape them into what you wanted so you could use that character that you preferred.

 

Will we be able to have control over a companions abilities in some way to shape them toward certain things we would need to better have a all around good group or will it indeed be locked?

Great post Chris. To follow up on Stiler's comment, I too felt one of the most hopeful lines in your original post was that "companions should be optional". I feel a lot more agency as a player when I can tell this sociopathic arse to take a long walk off a short pier rather than have him follow me around being a total prick for the rest of the game. And when I replay a game with a different character I may take a different view of a particular companion. I can't stand traveling with the paladin when I'm playing a rogue and he keeps getting all offended at my actions. But maybe I like that paladin plenty when I'm playing a cleric instead.

 

So making each companion fit a very specific role can make it hard to do with out certain ones. I know that personally, rather than picking the character type I want to play in may RPGs I instead play a test game or scour the internet to learn about the companions in detail and then custom build a player character who can complement the companions I can tolerate / enjoy. There are many times I have specifically chosen to play a character type I wasn't really that into for purely mechanical reasons. I hate all the mages in this game so I must play a mage or else my party can't survive.

 

You're experienced professional developers, so I'm sure you just yawn at all our irrational fears. But count this as one vote for a final balancing pass on the companions to ask yourself: What would happen if the player chose to play [each possible class] and refused to travel with [each possible companion]. If the answer to any of those is "the player is screwed" then try to tweak things.

 

Thanks for listening.

I think all three (right number?) of the evil characters I remember in BG2 were quite fun even when they constantly complained about your decisions, so I don't think it's really as strong a requirement that ego stroking be positive, it's just that most games can't really provide a context for dissimilar characters to be cooperating, whereas in BG2 it was obvious that Korgan cared about loot and Edwin cared about power in ways that let them say funny things and justified them sticking with a non-aligned player character.

 

 

Great post Chris, after reading your blog and trying to imagine the sorts of NPCs that you guys are planning to implement into Project Eternity I started to reflect on the NPCs that were available to you in the BG series (1 & 2).

 

I felt that due to the lack of interactivity in BG1 you are largely left with self exploration of the story and surroundings, whilst the supporting cast of NPCs simply felt overwhleming, with many crossing over into eachothers roles and therefore making it hard to find a happy medium when playing the game (for me there were a number that just never made the cut, even though I have replayed BG1 about 30 or so times).

 

This is quite jarring in comparison when transitioning over to BG2 as you end up with a much greater level of depth to each character, but the problem was (at least for me) that you felt somewhat gimped by the choices available to you with regards to party integration when considering the roles you needed to fill vs the interaction of NPCs with either your character or with eachother, sometimes leading to wanting to kill eachother or leave you party for good.

 

I would think a balance between these two would be the sweet spot to aim for with Project Eternity, by all means have this level of character depth, but leave the options open for other NPCs to fill the gaps that may be left should it not be viable to have certain NPCs in the one party as a cohesive unit.

 

Personally I loved that in BG2 they'd want to kill each other or leave the party for good. The 'gimping' thing is kind of a non-issue in BG2 because you can level so much. But I agree with you pretty much about BG1.

As you mentioned FO:NV, I have to admit I did not to have any companion on my first playthrough. What I missed here (and in many similar 3D-RPGs) when it comes to combat is control: I think you as the player should be able to directly control your companions, position them, make them use spells, and also level them up, so do everything to them you can also do with your main character. This probably fits into the "Combat/Challenge-viable" category. However, I am not worried about this point for P:E as it will be more similar to Baldur's Gate than to 3D Fallout in this aspect.

Good article. I've always wanted companions that react more to the player. We've gotten too used to being forced to take along psychopaths, which strangely never betray you if you constantly berate them.

 

Surely every companion should have the chance to betray the player if your goals are not similar, just as they have the opportunity to help the player if they do.

Great post I dont agree with one thing entirely though. Characters should aways stroke the players ego.

 

Some great games have down right annoying characters and have been better for them.

 

Yuffie in Final Fantasy VII. One of the end lawyers in Phoenix Wright the first game.

 

I think it would be interesting for your companions to seem to have a life of their own and motivations of their own.

 

What about a companion setting you up and betraying you?

 

Annoying characters in movies and tv series are some of the best most memorable.

i agree very much, hide the numbers! i always end up playing in a way where i try to get the highest score with everyone - i just can't resist the numbers

away with them! let us _feel_ the reaction of the guy, don't show us the numerical equivalent!

Exactly. I like to describe it as showing us, rather than telling us. If I gained or lost favor with someone, show me with facial experssions, gestures, words. Don't tell me with a +5 friendship.

Another thing I think is important and you didn't mention - Most recent RPGs chose to have mostly the player initiate dialogue with companions. You know, you talk to them, you see what's new, they tell you about themselves then you do it again an hour later to see if any new option popped up. While this is fine, I think this is a bit overplayed. I think these sort of dialogues work much better when they are initiated by the companion (like the BG2 banters.) I think it makes them feel more alive and active when they can decide to talk with you just as much as you can decide to talk with them.

 

Hear, hear!

 

I think there is a great deal of room for innovation in the relationships between players and companions. Many RPGs today have reduced companion interaction to a post-quest checklist: do something in the world, return to base and talk to everyone, repeat.

 

It would be wonderful to have these interactions happen in a more organic way, as they do in real life. To me, that means having companions with their own hopes/dreams/opinions who react to their their circumstances in a way that reveals those things. Sometimes they need to tell you something important. Sometimes they really want a beer right now. And they probably don't want to tell you their deep dark secrets while standing in the middle of a crowded street.

 

So let's hear what the companion says when there's only one room left at the inn.... awkward. Let's have one companion burst in and tell me the need to talk about one of the other guys. Let's have someone disappear for a day and not tell me where they were...

Great article and great replies with concerns. Now a few things that are important for me personally:

 

- Ego-stroking.

While I don't have a problem with this, I feel that I also don't want to see companions that do nothing but praise you or support your actions. Real life example: If you're with a friend somewhere and he/she says something stupid or out of place you may agree and, perhaps defend their opinion to a point, but afterwards, when no one sees you'll say the truth "Are you freaking stupid? What was that?!" and so on. Now why am I saying this... I'd really like to see reactive companions, but I want them to have personalities. I'd like to see my companion disagree with my actions if they go against his code or beliefs and I want him to show his/her resentment for my actions, behavior, etc., perhaps to the point where they'll leave the party as was in BG series. At the same time I don't mind if a companion likes what I do, say, etc., and says so IF it corresponds to his/her beliefs. This makes them alive and makes you as a player attached to diverse and interesting personalities. For me personally I'd rather have a clever non-combat (or a weak combatant) NPC who would tell me I am an ass (IF I am really being one or IF he/she dislikes me for whatever reason) rather than an able-bodied and seasoned fighter that will tag along and nod no matter what I do and behave.

 

- Approval.

I really enjoyed reading posts that asked to conceal or change the existing approval/disapproval mechanic. For me it totally breaks the immersion. Someone mentioned DA: O and I'd totally go against such implementation where you're forced to balance between what NPCs like and dislike in order to attain max approval that gives those companions some decent bonuses. I say make a system where approval or disapproval of an NPC builds up upon your actions/conversations with them/your behavior, like BG series, for example, but don't make it obvious to the players and please no numbers. Totally kills the whole feeling of epic adventure. I’d really like to have conversations where I need to think carefully what to say and when, because it’s not obvious that an NPC will like or dislike what you say. Besides, I think that as of recent RPGs the possibility to reflect your own beliefs (for the character or your own) onto your character became very limited indeed. I’d really like to see options where you could express those beliefs in dialogs, especially when conversing with your companions.

 

Otherwise everything looks really solid and thought out. Looking forward to seeing this implemented in P:E.

I have a question:

 

Will you make all women look like whores, pinups, fap material etc ?

 

Or are there some people that have figured out that the point of a chainmail or even a leather armor is to protect and not show off a square mile of cleavage?

 

 

If you want to put hot chicks in there then simply give characters a casual outfit so you can put **** on your advertisements.

Good read, Chris! Just a few things:

 

Character overlap is welcome to me if that means I won't have to choose between highly specialized companions that can be described as The Warrior, The Rogue, The Healer and the whatnot.

 

I don't want every companion to be equally balanced or to more or less appease me at every chance either. Quite the opposite. I want to have to appease, argue or put up with characters that are otherwise overpowered, like the warrior who is way stronger than me and tries to intimidate me into making the choices he wants, or a highly skilled chemist/thief with an insufferable attitude. Or why not a useless halfing gambler who basically just takes up a party slot for the sake of offering sazzy commentary.

 

One of the things that made BG2 so great was that your companions had their own lives that you more or less had to put up with if you wanted them to stick around. They didn't exist for your sake.

One of my favorite companions in New Vegas was Raul, especially with the impact you could have on his life after the game through chatting and in-game choices. I've found companions I can't really work with in a party - often rogue like characters, as I tend toward them myself - but who I love to party with because of their backstory/banter/choices. Sand and Sten are examples of a different dynamic: I liked their respective skills and abilities, saw them as minor antagonists in the story, but all the same really liked taking them with me. I enjoyed having the option to choose between Sand and Qara, and I think an important quality to companions is a reaction to certain character traits or histories. Rose of Sharon Cassidy and the Cherchez La Femme perk come to mind.

I definitely don't think companions need to conform to the options available to your own character. Out of the box abilities/stats is part of what sets them aside and makes them unique. Eg: Morte has bite attacks and powers not only related to his ?race? and class, but a slew of curses that he gets just for being himself.

Very interesting and very enjoyable to read.

 

While I was reading this, I kept thinking of how the folks at the Penny Arcade: Extra Credits web series often talk about how a game should not be valued solely on its writing, but how well the writing, themes, and characterization are integrated into the game mechanics. For example, how themes present themselves in combat, exploration, aesthetics, quest-completion, character arcs, and so on. While reading this blog, all I could think was how well you follow their advice. ^^

 

BioWare games are often praised for their writing, especially in their most recent Mass Effect and Dragon Age franchises, but to be honest it seems like a lot of their games rely on writing so much that they end up inadvertently creating visual books or clickable movies as opposed to interact-able stories or... playable games. I find your approach so much interesting and engaging, and you are clearly thinking of this from the perspective of a game designer (and an RPG game at that) as opposed to an author or filmmaker. ^^

 

With that said, there are some passages that concern me.

 

- "The golden rule is the companion should be a support character or a walking/breathing slab of target practice... the companion should serve as a sounding board for the theme of the game." I hope this doesn't mean the characters have weak personalities. No offense, but I don't want to feel like characters spring into existence when my player meets them, exist solely to serve my character's every whim, and then cease to exist as soon as my character stops looking at them. While it's what they are (meta-wise), I don't want them to look or talk that way in-game. I want to feel like they're real people with their own pasts, histories, thoughts, opinions, hopes, dreams, goals, ambitions and futures just like anyone else.

 

While I love the idea of their goals coinciding with the player (why else would they tag along?), and their histories, personalities and/or situations helping to highlight the overall theme (helps from a narrative perspective), I would rather they feel like well-rounded people who tag along because of mutual interest rather than mindless automatons waiting to serve my character's every whim. You've written some great characters in the past, so I trust you to do well with these guys too, but just the same hope you keep this in mind as you write them.

 

- "The companion needs to ego-stroke the player in a variety of ways." I'm sure you get this a lot, but I hope this doesn't mean the companions all blindly agree with the player's every action. I agree that "any companion that simply sits around bitching, complaining, and haranguing the player" is no fun, but at the same time, please don't be afraid to let some companions disagree with or even chew out the player if it fits their character. Again, I'd rather they feel like people with their own thoughts and opinions instead of satellites revolving around my character.

 

Otherwise, I have no real concerns. This sounds like it's going to be an amazing role-playing game, I love the role-playing game designing approach you're taking (again, I think it's really amazing that you seem to be approaching this as a game that players interact with, not just a movie that players keep going by pressing buttons), and I cannot wait to see how this evolves! ^_^

I just wanted to say that Myron is one of my favorite companions ever, and I am not the only one who believes he is good. His complete "me being me" attitude with great place in the story of the world he lives in and weakness in combat made him unique.

 

Myron is not a character testers and players will favor at first, but he is the character which made Fallout 2 be remembered fondly over the years. These sorts of characters are a risk, but they can be great investment in what a game achieves overall.

To be honest i particularly dislike the flagrant Ego Stroking that happens all the time from everyone in games like Mass Effect... particularly the way how every female character is commenting on how handsome Sheppard is and how much they want to have babies with him... it makes me feel sleazy that being a gamer developers think i want all the hot ladies to give me fanservice all the time and that it will make me enjoy myself more while playing the game :-/

Seriously, i really wish there were women in games that are not falling over their heels to get in bed with the main character and who actually have some depth and independence from the fact that they can also make babies.

You see, when games like Fallout 2 or Vampire Bloodlines or PS:T came out, i realized that a remarkable NPC makes the game spicy. Anyone remembering Jack from Bloodlines? Or Marcus from Fallout 2? Not to mention Dak'kon or Minsc. Those NPCs had a real character on them. And after years of gaming, i still can remember them and the conversations i made with them. The stories they told was impressive and they had a belieavable past. They were quite handy as a companion (well, not Jack). They had unique lines of speech and some "tone" on them. Sum of all; they were a real character, not some unsuccesful fiction.

 

Secondly i can tell that; companions should have thier own unique quests, own personal life and lastly they should have their own unique, remarkable items; just like in BG2.

 

This means, only a very talented and hard working man with a discipline can create them; like Chris Avellone. I have faith in you.