Leaderboard

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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!

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...

Another thing a companion should bring to the game is you should get access to at least one quest that you wouldn't otherwise get access to without them in your party. Also, at some point with any companion-only quest line, there should be at least one interesting decision for the player to make. At the end of the game they should be able to look back on that decision and wonder what would've happened had they made a different choice.

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!

Great read, thanks for taking the time out to post this. However I should point out I have no problem with a character upstaging the character. If the story calls for it, and it makes sense in the world/lore. I don't see it as a problem. However I can see why you don't do this due to some peoples dislike for it. I also like the comment about PC personality having an effect on available characters, I loathe when a character sticks around even when you do something that goes against their beliefs right in front of them. I would be all for them leaving/ attacking the character based on past/previous/current decisions/actions.

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.