Leaderboard

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.

I agree. If the numbers are hidden (both the current influence score and the increase/decrease popups) it will feel much more natural (see #1). You will get to feel how companions think of you, whether it's clear as crystal or more obscured (see #2). #1 Treat a companion like dirt? After a while she starts to greet you more and more bitterly. Be nice to a cranky companion? He's still a prick to everyone else, but when talking to you he develops a normal tone. With hints like this, coupled with the fact that the player should remember which companions he's been friendly or unfriendly to, the whole influence/friendship part of companions will feel much more natural and less like you're simply manipulating these pieces of data for some reward. It would also be nice if companions started out with different opinions of you based on their personality as well as your character's class/race/background. A former reclusive might start out with a lower opinion of you than the other companions just because that's how he is - and if you're an Elf he'll start out even lower because of his racist views. #2 Say one companion is a noble and harmonic knight. Or he may have been schooled as one, but may not live up to that expectation all the time. Anyway, that is what is expected of him. So when you insult his political and religious views, his opinion of you drops to resentment. But because of his schooling, he does not show it in any way. Perhaps you'll only see his true opinion of you in some stressful situation where his facade breaks down for a moment, and if you're an observant player, you'll notice that he actually hates you and so you make up a plan to increase his opinion of you the next chance you get - if it's even possible at this point...

To dmbot's point about companions initiating the dialogue: I agree that it does make them feel more alive, but it can sometimes be annoying, particularly if it's out of context. In BG2 I would be in some dark, messed up dungeon and then Jaheria and Aerie would start cat fighting over who likes me more (who could blame them). There would always be a dialogue option where you could tell them "not now" or "no one cares" but I never chose those for fear of affecting the relationship with them. So, while I do like when they bring stuff up, there's a time and place. Certain dialogues should probably only be initiated in towns, or traveling between places on the map. I always enjoyed the scenarios in the old SNES rpgs where you would sleep at an inn, and then a couple of your characters would wake up (with the world now tinted blue) and start talking about whatever.

I think it's fair and a good point - companions shouldn't be (1) more powerful than the player, to the point where they can handle the combats by themselves, (2) upstage the player, and (3) seem to have used the ruleset in ways the player cannot to their advantage (ex: they're allowed to have stat allocations that no normal player could have made). All these things can breed resentment. A lot of the CNPC-initiated companion stuff makes them feel more alive, as long as the execution is handled correctly and it makes sense in the context of the situation. I probably should have mentioned that you need to have balanced companion choices based on player personality - if they are a psychotic, there should be some companions that will stick with you, and the same is true if you walk middle of the road or walk the paladin's road as well. This can depend on alignment range, karma range, or faction range. Anyway, blah blah blah words words words

Great article! I wanted to comment about the first point, combat. While I agree with you, I think it's also important to not make the companions too great. In BG2, for example, some of the companions were built with some downright weird stats allocation - Anomen, a cleric, had 13 wisdom, many fighters had less than 18 strength and many were uselessly multiclassed. This just made them more interesting and usually really drove the character point home. This worked because in party-based RPGs, as long as the companion has a role he can feel serviceably, he is useful enough. He does after all have 5 more charactesr to help him pull the weight, and you only really need one character of each role. So, what I'm trying to say is that I'll love to see characters creativity also presented in their stats and such even if it doesn't make 100% strategic sense. 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. 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.