JohanKris

I say it again. Internal consistency. the world must follow its own rules and the things it has set up, just make sure those things to contradict each other or change for no reason.

Yes, that's something to hope for. As long as they have any reactivity at all it should make them feel on par with companions. Probably to much for this project though. apart from NPC dialogue about things like their race, profession or equipment. Like "I would only trust giving that information to a dwarf, like your friend Gurka there".

I'd say that's very well what I did. While companions may have assumptions and may be outspoken about the game world, created characters presumably will have none, and no life in the world to speak of. Would it irritate me to have a mix of both in the party? Slightly I guess. That a game only gets worse if you miss out on content seems a pretty arbitrary opinion of yours. But going with it, one thing that could make the game worse is if the inclusion of the Adventurers' Hall makes the devs slim down the number of "full" companions - say, 5 companions, and if you want more you can use the AH. You don't understand what I am saying.. (and I didn't say the game gets worse with missing content, especially since it is a small part and anyone can take in that companion and quest whenever they will) Here you are talking about how your experience would differ if you did or did not take on these self-made guys. that is not how it change or mix up the game. that is a choice by you on what you want in your game. Please note that even player created characters could have dialogue and special event if it is designed that way. What I am talking about and what would affect the game is things like this: - Player created characters are way better in combat/magic, breaking the balance of the game and either making it easier or more difficult for some. - Companions are crucial to the plot, meaning that someone that don't take them will miss important plot points. - Companion(s) have some special attacks against certain enemies that non other got. - There are crucial game systems in place that needs the companions. (i.e. Soul will be drained without Master Bro in your party) See, if the way the game is played will change with what party you make then it mixes it up. Especially if it breaks the balance. Optional quest is just a piece of content that whoever can use or not.

This is actually a plausible outcome. Deserts are not always hot, they just lack rainfall. There is plenty of frozen desert in Asia. I can't remember any desert in direct connection to tundra though, as most tundra regions of our world see enough precipitation.

Apart from dialogue, companions could have personal quests, leanings towards certain factions etc. All that is speculation right now. I'd just find it somewhat... strange to have mute puppets and fully scripted companions in one party. I'm not saying it's a design flaw, nor that they should remove one of these options. If anything, I'm hoping that they make characters from the AH a bit more seemingly possessed of their own will than they were i.e. in BG so the contrast isn't so stark. But you said that both approaches don't mix well. what you say here is not a argument of why they don't mix well. This is only about content you will miss if you don't pick companions. Having a party with both will be taking in part of that content (or if you change companions around possibly all, i did in BG2) and partly having your own party. Saying that they don't mix well should mean that the game in some way will be made worse because of it. I could come up with examples, but it is really up to you if you want to back up what you said.

I think you need to expand on that. What in the game is affected by this? Remember that player created characters don't impact on the world apart from combat (or possibly some skill use), which makes their exclusion or inclusion a non-factor as for what is in the game compared to if it was with only pre-written companions. They just have less dialogue

As a lover of maps and creating words this is almost a dear subject for me. Sure when I was a teen and created worlds they tended to not make much sense in many ways. Now it is important for me, every little detail. Nice. any big difference in elevation or highlands? Internally consistant. Which goes for most things in the setting unless you aim for comedy. So you might have a magic cloud eternally raining on a mountain and therefore many rivers start from it. But if your world has a magically altered weather that is totally random, then it makes no sense to have a desert or rainforest. Fantasy world creators have a habit for a few things. The most classic is the "a country is surrounded by mountains". It will not give off much athmosphere of danger unless you put that in game-mechanics. Even if the game tells you it is -40C you hardly will care unless your guys lose health while being outside. Of course cliffs without invisible walls that keep you from falling sure would give that impression. Would even be cool with attacks that push someone over the cliff. "Stay on the inside Sam!"

Immersion? if you create all characters you can imagine them any way you want. As for Bg there hardly were much of "interactive characters", sure you could talk a big with them with a very few choices, but that was it. I came from games were you made your own party and I sure did that in BG too. Half the IE games there was no companions to talk about at all.

It is a imagined effect. Imagination is what you make beyond what is there and what is told. Therefore your decision isn't about imagination, it is about reason. You reason what is the best or in this case most fitting choice. Games in their imperfection just gives you a baseline to follow and if your imagination fills out more, fine. The more things you imagine about your character, the less will the game aknowledge it. Unless you bend what you imagined into what is. Could work, if game follows some archetypes that you can play. Normally it is just nice person or ****. but what can we do? It is hard for me to imagine people playing cRPG were they are "in-character", as in seriously being that. I have a fantastic imagination, but I certainly don't delve that deeply into roleplaying a game. You can't like modern games much then, as the trend is "not really interactive movies". If anything it feels like you would be fit for some content heavy MMORPG.

Well in most fantasy games the world is pretty harsh and filled with bandits and hostile monsters, so of course no one would care if you are walking around fully armored. An armed traveler wouldn't be suspicious. It would only be suspicious if you were trying to pretend to be a villager dressed like that. If the chances of getting into a gunfight in real life were the same as the chances of fighting bandits and monsters on the road in a fantasy game then no one would be surprised to see people walking around in bullet proof vests. As for fantasy yes. But the full plate kind of armour isn't exactly the adventurer kind of armour. Full plate was really an armour that was put on before battles or jousting. its not like the medieval times ever saw knights ride around town in it or go to the bakery full plated. Not that full plate has ever been put in a game like it is IRL. And it is just tedious for players to take on and off it manually.

I don't know Jeasun. I think they could benefit from free cleaning, massage and commuting.

The answer for nudity is of course obvious. If it fits the setting. Sex is better to exclude. Unless it is based on stats of course.

but one of the first sex games of them all... simply called "sex games"... was a twitchy realtime game were you rythmically turned the stick back and forth. This is not some new feature! But that game did feature naked men too, so I guess it wasn't really a appropriate game. Was really awkward.

I'll just give a short answer to this one. Interesting quests and/or interesting choices

But Jarpie, in how many games has it really been like this? I would say that the clear "romance branch" part of the companions in the Bioware games is clearly less than 50% (and they are almost the only ones doing romance). I played most their games and the bulk of all companion dialogue is aside from any romance. It is just a few sentences, which is why they suck to begin with. I don't see why it really hurts, even if I would prefer to only have this if it is really well written and well-done. Then the romance would be as pointless and shallow as in Bioware games and several in here have said that they don't want Bioware romances. Then you have nothing to worry about my friend, unless you expect the writers here to suddenly go all in on that. more likely some will have to worry about the romance just being a part-bit 1-5 choice thing as that sounds more like the scope of this game. Unless they choose to make ONE really good romance and then you can just hope for a ability to kill that companion