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

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.

They are in fact the MOST essential part to make it a RPG. it is the basis for the interaction in a PnP RPG, but a CRPG obvisouly is limited in how it can implement it. since a CRPG only present choices, while in a PnP all choices is always avaialable. This is how it is in a PnP RPG: 1. "GM describes place and/or situation" 2. Players present action, including saying something. 3. GM react to what they did. 4. Back to players... and so on. Basically all roleplaying goes on from the worlds reaction to their actions, it is the essence of roleplaying. If the player don't have a world that reacts and fantasises that, then he is just indulging himself. With no reaction there was no choice. I think what you more is thinking about is how brief descriptions make your fantasy create something from it or how you will speculate about anything vague. but as in telling a story or making meaningful reaction, it simply don't. at all. Nothing wrong with that, I do that myself about most things I ingest. the games you mentioned was mostly just combat games. story was presented in non-interactive text.

Your welcome Josh. Now it is up to you guys to make sure we will thank you after this thing is done.

Random encounters can't remain on the map, only locations. Unless you encounter snails on an epic journey through the world.

If anything having a young lad/lass in a adventuring party going into dangerous combat is a bit gimmicky. directly I see in my mind horrible movie plots. I don't think it fits apart from something limited. to really make this great you need to bring it integrally into the story and I believe we can already say that will not be done. That is said even if I think this is a interesting concept. Even more if the person you affected becomes important later on and what you said and did during the game affects what that person will do then. Would possibly be some fantastic choice and consequence in that case.

For a story I read a book or watch a movie. I play games for the gameplay and for most games the story is just a way to push the gameplay forward. For RPGs the story is sometimes more at the forefront, but I only like the story due to its interactive component. Making the choices as see what they bring is the important part of the story for me.

Living world for me holds a clear second place to "atmosphere". How the game portrays a living world with what it shows. What is most important is what is shown. do you see a fisherman at a beach and can tell it is a fisherman then the game already succeeded. People and places should look like they belong and do things that make sense, then you already feel you are in a living world. You don't need a advanced NPC schedule for that. Would be enough with a day and night cycle.

AFAIK the authors writing on this game have their mature compass firmly in place. The things you mentioned is just things that could be mature content, but they are not by nature. If anyone understood what I meant. :D If anything I believe you might use the word "theme" instead, you want mature themes. Most certainly a story with gratious sex isn't very mature in my eyes, in fact the inclusion of sex doesn't sway it either way. It is how it is is presented. therefore "theme", not "content".

Might not be directed at me, but since I called it a mini-game I will indulge. First, you now compare what normally is a few dialoge options separate from the main game with things that are integral features. Quests is the whole meat of the game and at best (that we seen in games this far) romance is 1-2 quests out of 50-100s in a game. In fact all things you mentioned as "mini-games" are big and integral features of a roleplaying game, things that are so important that they are not even listed as features. Just like you don't list "wheels" as a feature on your car. To call mini-games evil (which I didn't, so I guess this was not to me!) is obviously a bit to far and to call romance (like I did) for a mini-game is not entirerly correct. In a classic sense it isn't. It is in fact either just a few conversations checks were you just choose "I like you" "I agree with you" options or baked in with a companion quest (i.e. Something from my past haunts me). Content-wise it is less than 5% of the game, probably closer to 1%, although I just found those numbers in my ass.

Actually, if this really is the case I think it would be more in the line of having choices like - Retort angrily - Try to manipulate (wisdom/skill) - Agree with him - Intimidate (skill) then you can choose what really fits his personality. (this often might have the problem were above descriptions end up with lines that just feels far away from what you expected) Because when exact words are written out it often ends up with you choosing what you think is the best answer and it is again about you, not the character. Unless the writers have a uncanny ability to come up with conversation options that really don't convey which choice is better. Otherwise I agree with you, timed conversations don't fit into this game.