TRX850

@Umberlin, you are of course correct. Likeability will always be subjective. The two example links I included on page one of this thread list their own criteria for how likeable or useful they deemed each BG character to be, and came up with a score at the end. People will always do this, especially for popular games, and there are many of these so-called character assessments out there, not just those two. The problem I see is long term however, because given enough time, these sorts of rank listings become part of the public memory; a sort of "go to" guide when players need to remind themselves of how they want to plan their next playthrough. The point I was hoping to make by demonstrating this is that when people praise game characters, it's all well and good, but when they slate other characters who are perceived to be comparatively worse, for all sorts of reasons, then someone should look at why there is such a divide and consider tweaking the character design to normalize things more. I did eventually suggest that perhaps the meaning of this thread could be better worded and that instead of trying to quantify likeability (which would inevitably go round in circles), that perhaps we should look at what makes characters "compelling" or "intriguing". I wasn't trying to disguise anything by doing this, but to invite members to consider it from a slightly different perspective. But the reasons behind it remain. I would like the choice of who I want to join my party to be made *even more difficult* because I now have fewer reasons to reject certain characters, and more reasons to see that they are more balanced in their overall purpose for being in the game. Things like entertainment value, special abilities, unique personalities, quest potential, and many other reasons like this are the reasons I should be considering. Not things like how bad their stats are, or their voice acting and so on. I've played BG a few times, and there are only a couple of NPCs I haven't tried yet, but I do find that it's human nature to choose the more compelling, more intriguing characters who have great entertainment value, special abilities, unique personalities, and in particular, quest potential. That last point is very important in game design. Anyway, as Hormalakh so aptly pointed out, there is indeed an information packed article by Chris Avellone addressing these concerns and that we're basically in good hands.

Oh, right. I did actually see that post a while back, but had possibly forgotten the specifics. I'm glad he's on the case anyway. I'm excited to see what transpires.

They could apply a real-time MeshDeform modifier to "divide" the water, allowing the party to walk across. I'm picturing Josh Sawyer with his head in his hands right about now...

A recent question was raised on the Water Effects thread about druids parting water. Now if only Obsidian could implement this scenario, it'd be brownie points all round.

I can't tell if you're joking or not. It may be that "likeable" or "memorable" are the wrong words here. There's something phony about a character who wants to be liked. Maybe we need to think of them as "compelling" or "intriguing" ? The reasoning behind getting it right is the same. But if they're now compelling or intriguing, then....

Exactly. There should still be a random factor in each permutation so you don't get the same patterns recurring too often. I just mean there should also be some logic applied to where each successive blow lands, based on the previous blow, but not necessarily sticking to any predefined combat chain. I guess maybe it's a combination of both historical and random in that case. I've often thought about this, in almost any RPG. Why does my Level 1 character take up a goofy "I'm gonna swing my sword like a baseball bat at yer head!" stance and swing once every... oh.. 3 seconds, in combat, and deal 12 damage, when he COULD swing every second (in a flowing sequence of little animations that rely on a handful of resting-point poses for all animations) and just do like 4 damage per swing? Hell, even dodges and parries could be worked in, because, as has already been said, a modern computer can process these rolls STUPIDLY quickly. I am also reminded of games like Pirates of the Burning Sea, which, despite its way-too-fast melee system, did have interesting fighting style chains you could improve on as you levelled up. I'm sure there are many other games that do this, but conceptually, it could add a ton of flavour to P:E if the soon-to-go-exponential-number-of-attack-animations can be smoothed out through a motion flow system. So instead of choosing the old school feat of "Dirty Fighting" which dealt bonus effect damage on a crit, it could actually represent a new visual style in the animations too. Or if you wanted a Florentine style for your swashbuckler or an Anglo-Germanic style for your paladin, these all made some additional visual sense during combat. I love the idea of the dirty fighting rogue making a desperate tumble and ending with a knife-in-the-bollocks maneuver. Ouch! Then again, it might go too far into RTS territory for it to "look and feel right", but I really couldn't say.

This is why I started this thread. http://www.gamebanshee.com/baldursgate/strategies/npcguide2.php and http://www.gamefaqs.com/pc/75251-baldurs-gate/faqs/2459 And I'm not saying we should get a frowny face on at the authors of these articles, just that we understand that this is what happens when perceived character design flaws rub players the wrong way.

See, I'd have someone like Tauron in my party because he has a clearly defined goal. And it leaves open the possibility that one day he will try to petrify someone he shouldn't have messed with, and then a new chapter begins, and he is changed somehow. Pigeons? Really?

He actually sounds really memorable. He sounds like Boba Fett.

I don't mean to pick on her really. I too use her for about 50% of my playthroughs. I just grit my teeth when she does her neurotic teenage sex-and-the-city voice over. For me, that aspect of her characterization is something I see as too modern. I don't mean that every character has to speak in Shakespearean iambic pentameter, but sometimes there is a clash of time periods going on with dialogue in games. Going out on a limb here, I think maybe we're often too cautious about the whole diversity thing, as if we've been conditioned by society to accept that political correctness is the only way to go when it comes to tolerance. In the real world, social behaviour and tolerance is one thing. In the game world, I don't think it always makes for the best gaming experience, regardless of character diversity, flaws, agendas, and personal stories. I can only reiterate that I personally am all for a diverse range of henchmen, with attitudes and opinions that I might not agree with. Sometimes I like to play characters who come out with things that nobody ever expects. To me, that's more interesting than a henchmen who clings to a half-baked idea and never changes. Maybe if they all had their chance to shine in some amazing way, in spite of their regular traits; a temporary contradiction almost, that would go a long way to giving them replay value.

I just mean that once you have all the symbols translated into letters, they make up a word that you could then type in. It may be that you still have to arrange the letters into an actual word, as per your previous example, and this would constitute utilizing a player's intelligence, sure. I have no problem with that. I think it comes down to how you find the separate "ingredients" that make up the puzzle. That's the real question. Is it a fetch quest, or some other method to acquire the information in distinct pieces before you can bring them all together to answer the puzzle? I think also, "puzzle" and "riddle" can be quite different. If you were asked to answer a riddle (which was a different riddle each playthrough) it could still imply you had to "go off and do something" to find clues to that riddle before answering.

I think an easy way to solve it, and have the best of both worlds, is to have a system where the answer is different each playthrough. But instead of the puzzle being mathematical or a word jumble, (which is essentially a player's own skill check, rather than a character skill check), make the answer a collection of symbols or icons gathered from a series of challenges, including a tome that you find which translates the symbols into letters. So the player still has to complete a series of challenges to find a dynamically generated answer that is highly unlikely to be the same as the previous time, and hence, not something that is definitive in a walkthrough. So there are no "short cuts" as such, and you don't frustrate the player either.

I'm all for a wide variety of choice, particularly in stats that reflect real world characters. Often, flawed characters are best, or the most memorable. I wouldn't want to see min-maxed, perfectly optimized characters. That suggests the game devs have influenced that character role too much in an obvious direction. I think the voice acting is half the battle though. Take Neeshka for example. An excellent rogue, stat-wise and skill-wise. But it did seem her voice and characterization fell under a modern "brat culture" stereotype. I mean, you could debate how she is based on a known stereotype which makes her realistic, but there's a big difference between acknowledging that and having her play by your side the whole campaign. Being forced to grit your teeth and bare it is a tricky thing to quantify. I kinda like characters who nitpick and are opinionated about in-game matters, if they know they're being sarcastic or ironic. It's when you're asked to take an annoying character seriously, that's when players often reach their tolerance threshold. The thing is, we should have a wide variety of choice, however, the more reasons you give a player NOT to choose one particular henchman over a perceived better henchmen, means that all the hard work the devs have put into the less desirable character is not fully utilized. If there was a way to measure how players choose henchmen over a period of time, it would be interesting to see if there was a pattern that meant certain henchmen appeared at the bottom of the list. And if this was the case, rather than change them into thoroughly-lovely-right-on-likeable-chaps, just adjust a few small things that put them on par with the others, but don't change fundamental aspects.

Oooo-kay. An example of what I mean is, over the years there have been many internet forums listing all the companions in IE games and other CRPG franchises in their perceived order of usefulness or likeability. And this is only someone's opinion. But there are many of these lists out there essentially doing the same thing: praising certain companions for being useful and likeable, and slating others for being god awful. And yes. It's unfair. Or is it? The reason I brought it up is because I would not want to see the same thing happen with P:E. I would assume the devs are wise to "post-release criticism" already, by not giving players a reason in the first place for slating a character because they are simply deemed "annoying". And by the way, these are not my comments, but comments from connoisseurs of the IE games in particular. I'm just the messenger here. Some examples that come to mind are Quayle and Xan from BG, and Grobnar and Neeshka from NWN2. And from memory, the main reason why people slate them is due to terrible stats and/or whiny dialogue. Players seem to be particularly put off by whiny or neurotic voice acting that either sounds too modern or too cartoony. I'm not here to overly criticize what's happened in the past. Just to raise awareness that sometimes, despite the best efforts of writers and character designers hoping to "keep things real" it often backfires, and even the players who claim to enjoy playing terrible characters or henchmen eventually tire of the idea and adjust their party line-up on the next playthrough.

In defence of the OP, I think we might have unintentionally warped his initial suggestion over the course of this thread. I think what worries people is the wording. "Finishing Moves" conjures up the notion of control being taken away from the player for a few seconds, and the camera panning around in some crazy Manga/Japanime style with over-the-top "double-kill" effects and whatnot that would be really jarring and unbefitting with the classic Baldur's Gate legacy. From reading other posts on related subjects, most if not all players are in favour of a meaningful range of attack animations that break up the repetition of combat. And yes, in BG/BG2 for example, there is the "gore" option which sometimes chunks the enemy into bits of flying limbs on the finishing move. I'm guessing having a range of death animations will satisfy players, as long as it's a continuation of the combat style the devs decide to implement, i.e. one that doesn't interrupt the flow or take control away specifically for the above example. It may well be that enemies get "chunked" in different ways, but we'll have to wait and see.

Attack speed was used in conjunction with initiative rolls to determine the order of combat each round, i.e. light/fast weapons usually attack first. I don't think it sped up the attack animations at all. But it begs the question though, if P:E uses combat rounds similarly to BG/D&D rules, there may be an awful lot of non-action each round, especially at lower levels. Maybe in those dead spots, melee characters could adopt an En Guarde stance with variable footwork and baulking? I don't really want to see anything too radical here though, at the risk of losing too much of that old school charm. But just enough so it doesn't look ordinary.

Exactly. There should still be a random factor in each permutation so you don't get the same patterns recurring too often. I just mean there should also be some logic applied to where each successive blow lands, based on the previous blow, but not necessarily sticking to any predefined combat chain. I guess maybe it's a combination of both historical and random in that case.

What would be really awesome is seeing a variation of combat animations that all string together fluidly as your character gains extra attacks. Combat variations are pretty standard. But when you have 2 or 3 or 4 attacks per round, there could be "historically accurate" combinations of cleaves and counter-cleaves calculated on-the-fly, but each determined by the position of the preceding attack (apart from the first one). It'd be different for different weapon types, but the really spectacular combos could unlock as your attacks per round increase.

NWN2 offers user-defined height and girth options at character creation. Maybe something like this could also be implemented in P:E. I also don't like some of the older, chunkier phenotypes from some games. Humanoid anatomy is so much more variable than some games depict. I guess it always comes down to difficulty and expense to code it into the engine.

In the real world, we all know both likeable and annoying people. It's an inevitable part of life. And so on paper, it would make perfect sense to bring that rationale into the game world. We don't always like who we get to work with, or who we have as a companion by our side while adventuring. However, I would now suggest that we turn that rationale on its head and punch it in the spleen. Hard. If you consider all the playable companions in past IE games, the NWN series, and any other franchise for that matter, you will know which characters stand out from the rest, either for being likeable, or a right royal pain in the wotsit. Some players aren't bothered too much by it, but from reading game forums over the years, it's clear that many players will actively avoid certain companions, even to the point of foregoing side quests just so they don't have to listen to them. Now I know it's still a player's choice as to whom they have in their party, but my suggestions is this: if having a full range of character traits in the game world is inevitable, then consider making the less likeable types as true NPCs, such as commoners, quest-givers, plot characters, villains, and other enemies. And for the record, a likeable character doesn't have to be good and morally upright. Take Hannibal Lecter for example. Yes, he will eat your liver, with some fava beans and a nice chianti, but he is also highly intelligent, and in conversation is a perfect gentleman. To me, he's a likeable, memorable character. Would I like him in my party? er....I'll get back to you on that. Now having said all that, I actually think that some amount of bickering and moaning between companions can be quite entertaining....if it's done well. There's a fine line between someone who complains a lot and someone who is constantly annoying. Maybe it's partially down to voice acting, and partially down to the script. Writers don't always receive credit for the work they do. And those among you who have studied creative writing will know how daunting it can be. I think my overall point is if there is a perceived disincentive NOT to have certain companions in your party, then convert that into an incentive to confront undesirable NPCs. Sometimes bringing real world rationale into a game world has an unintentional negative effect on the gaming experience itself. Does anyone have any examples, or thoughts on what we should learn from likeable or unlikeable game characters?

Whether the Beast Master is something that becomes a druid/ranger class kit or prestige class, or just a play style you adhere to, I like the idea of a turn animals ability. From a design point of view, it could use the same process as turn undead. As you traipse through the woods, you encounter a family of wild boars. They become hostile, so you attempt to turn them. Die rolls are made, and bonus points (if any) are added. At lower levels, you either turn them or you don't. If you succeed, they flee the area (plus XP reward). If you fail, they attack. At mid level, maybe there's an intermediary condition where they become neutral (plus XP reward). And at higher levels, you bond with the animal and claim yourself a companion. The only thing that's bugging me now is how it would handle multiple animals during a single encounter. You might have to be very selective when using this power, or maybe if you had enough of a "mind link" with an animal, it could prompt a sort of "Would you care to join me?" dialogue option. Could get tricky if half a dozen snow leopards all want to join you at once. And would it work in unison with a druid/ranger Animal Companion ability (if they implement one) if your character already had this? So you could have your main companion, plus a pack of secondary companions following closely behind? Edit: This could of course extend to barbarians too. Edit: When stating "mid level" and "high level", this should probably apply to skill level rather than class level.

Something I haven't seen in an IE game before. Imagine having to "level up" your intelligent weapon? Could be awesome, but could become overpowered, unless they put some level cap in. But it's an excellent question, Atreides.

A pickpocketing monk. And when my victims turn hostile, I get all Jedi on them <waves hand> "You saw nothing, grass hopper..."

A couple more druid class ideas. Forage A modal action similar to trap searching, effective in wilderness areas only, allowing the druid to find edible fungus, roots and berries. Up to one unit of food per two druid levels may be foraged in a single area. Each unit can be carried like a ration pack that restores 10 hp. Could use "Wilderness Lore" or a "Wilderness Survival" skill check? And to prevent exploiting this ability, maybe 20-30 minutes of real time must elapse in each area before potential food respawns. Favoured Enemy As the ranger ability, but may only choose creatures considered to be "against nature", such as undead, constructs, and aberrant types like beholders or mind flayers. And possibly trolls and goblinoids. Or whatever the P:E creature equivalents will end up becoming. These are quick suggestions only, but I'm trying to think of how druid abilities could be made feasible in a game scenario.

I really should read ALL posts before commenting.