MuseBreaks

So the bottom line is to use infinity? Like I said I prefer the isometric view of BG2 or Pillars of Eternity. I dislike the Neverwinter engine ...

Hi all. I have participated in the funding of the first game and got a copy via steam. I really like RPG games and am more connected to Baldur's gate 2 and Pillars of eternity styles, as in an isometric view with a beautiful painting landscape, a group of adventurers and lots of text etc. I would like to learn modding for such games, preferably using pillars of eternity system simply because it looks a bit better then the old infinity engine and has cool stuff like the "events". My emphasize is on plot making, I don't really want to touch or change anything else, not the rules, not the models etc. I just want to create a new plot. 1. Is this something I can do with the available resources I have (an access to the 1st game via funding as said) or do I need to buy/download something else? 2. Is there anywhere a guide for beginners for this? 3. Should I start with the infinity engine instead? Thank you

Hello, I pledged for the game very early and was a bit disappointed from the game when it came out. The most important aspect for me is the plot and companions etc. and I found it quite not interesting at the beginning ad least. Now I want to finally give the game another chance but I want to know first who are the most important companions for the plot, which class should I choose plot wise and game wise, especially when taking into consideration the most important npc's that I take with me. Talking about class I really wanted hunter/ranger, but I heard he is the worst class, so I am unsure who to take now. Another question about companions: In BGII I used to take with me Jaheira, Minsc and Yoshimo (which is replaced by Imoen) almost every run (since plot wise you start with them... you share your destiny with them against Irenicus - and I prefer plot and story play like I said so that is the most logical option - this is for you to understand what I mean that plot is most important for me), when the other npc's changed over time after a while (I took the 5th and 6th npc for a while, did their quest, and then dumped them for another, I took Viconia to the underdark ... and all that was done for plot and story reasons: traveling with all companions). If that is possible in Pillars also.. then I would like to know what is the best sequence. I post here cause I don't mind minor spoilers, just want to get advice for best play through story wise. Thanks

I agree 100% percent. The story and setting are dull and uninteresting and are nowhere near Baldur's Gate 2. I hoped for something epic and we got mediocre at best. I will also add that although I do agree with what you said about the language, I think it's only secondary to the overall plot and setting and such. I could have forgiven the language if there was a sense of the epic feeling and interest I had in the Baldur's Gate 2 plot and setting. But there wasn't, so it's all nothing but one big mediocre gray game in terms of plot and setting.

Completely agree. I'm here for the narrative as well so I hope for a good story and a good ending (good as in emotional, not necessarily "good").

It is quite an annoying issue indeed. As many stated, almost every solution to this question is somehow unrealistic and has it's own ups and downs. However I do think the devs should have made a little bit of a different solution: in the form of magical bags that you can put as much stuff as you like in them and they loose their weight in them, and that's it (and it obviously also takes time until you get such begs for each of your companions and yourself, but through the game you will eventually find 1 bag for everyone). or something similar. I guess what they did is similar ^_^

Completely agree, I prefer quality. If they think this is needed and it is possible financially, I don't have a problem with Obsidian postponing the release date in order to finish up what ever needed (though I can't wait already The example of other Infinity games are proving exactly this I think, since they were not polished in many ways, especially from story and plot perspectives, due to pressure of release date and publisher companies (correct me if I am wrong).

Completely agree. It's nice that they care and develop all these different aspects, but some of us want more story and hope that all this does not come at the expense of the story development

Thanks for the update. I've posted a thread that concerns companions and the plot because this is the most important aspect in my opinion in a story driven infinity game. http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/63340-party-system/ I really hope that you would be able to make the party-companion-mechanism-plot work really good and fluent. First I think each companion should be heavily important to the main plot-arch and / or specifically and emotionally connected to the player somehow, and not some random encounter with the "hey you look interesting let me come along with you" fashion. In each of the infinity games my core party was always consisted of the same members, those members that were closest to the player, while the rest kept changing. For instance in Baldur's Gate 2, I always took with me Imoen, Jaheira, Minsc and Yoshimo in each play through no exception and the reason is because I felt the four/five of us "are in this together" kind of feeling, since we escaped Irenicus' dungeon together. I never had that feeling for the other available companions. The second issue is about swapping and changing companions. If all of them are important to the player and / or the main plot, there should be some kind of mechanism for us to be able to switch companions whenever needed. It should be some kind of party camp or stronghold (similar to the Dragon Age party camp mechanism) but furthermore there should also be realistic situations which force you to change party members during some parts of the game. This could contribute heavily to the reality and the diversity of the game. Companions are real people and they have their own business and the world is also real, so things could go wrong and your party can be split for example against your wishes. It happens in adventures and that's the fun. Companions should betray you (like the Yoshimo case in BG2, which opened an available slot to take Imoen with you in Spellhold), they should be kidnapped, split from you, leave you for a while etc. These kind of situations would allow you to enjoy ALL of the available 8 companions, bond with all of them and complete their story-archs and complete their relativity to the main plot. Also it doesn't necessarily mean you won't see/play them. If your party gets split by an encounter that is connected to the main-plot in a main-plot dungeon (2/3 party members get separated from the main party in a cave for example), you can still make them available to play each time the player goes to sleep for instance (and the explanation would a realistic dream-vision from the player), that way we still play them and follow their plot and their temporary separated journey is also important to drive the main plot and it would be quite cool

I completely agree with Razsius and I'll also add that the fight cutscene in BG2 doesn't necessarily mean you stand and watch the fight, it may simply mean infinity engine limitation, when in reality what happens is that you try to save her but it's too late when you reach the scene. In any case this can easily be changed by changing the cutscene, not by cancelling cutscenes completely. What if every one of them has high Dexterity? So? Are you saying people with high dexterity can't fall? Your point is simply wrong (and no it's not bad writing if from all the companions, the ones with the high dexterity fell, its just irony). What about replayability? What about companions who don't like one another? Streamlining the plot into Final Fantasy rarely does it any good (from the point of a gameplay value, I mean). I've discussed about it before: yes after 1 play when you find out Yoshimo is a traitor, it might hurt the so called replayability from one perspective, HOWEVER from a different perspective: that fact and story twist made (among other features) BG2:SOA such a great game (better then BG1 for example where the companions didn't even talk and you had millions of pointless companions and tons of so called replaybility to "try and mix them up"). If I need to chose I'd choose BG2 any day over BG1. Companions should more then fight and disagree, however you (the player) should always have the option to cool things down and make them focus on the mission. Again I've addressed this issue: I want to see an adventure and an interesting plot that involves all your companions with lots of conflicts and events that would all come to a conclusion in the end. I'm also glad you stated movies. Yes it's a game and we should have choices and they should more then matter, but there's also a plot and the plot is always always much more interesting when things happen and you don't have control over them (it's also much more realistic). And in any good adventure book that involves a group of party members: like the Dragonlance series for example, the adventurers are in conflicts with each other, they get separated, their motivations are uncovered, but they also change, etc. etc. The key is to mix the free choice and the linear plot and make a good game and plot: just like BG2:SOA was.

I think I explained what I want in almost every way possible... - I also think characters should leave when it's logical (though you can perfectly match the "logical leaving" to a situation where you meet a new character so everything would match perfectly). The cutscenes where the protagonist stared at other NPC's moving were actually very few, short and to the point and they motivated the plot, and made it more interesting. I am totally up for more of them. - AND such scenes could work for what I want: if you are in a cave, and there's a ditch, 1 / 2 of your party members can fall to the ditch (but not die) because of a sudden earthquake (it's a dragon cave and the beast moved) and this is the "logical leaving" and a small cutscene where the protagonist can't do anything! As I've said I am looking for an interesting plot, and the ability to travel with all companions, it's more important to me then: "Assemble a rouge, warrior, mage and priest, while playing a super cool barbarian/monk multi class (and a super special sub-race) and kick lot's of monsters in the ass pointless game".

By the way, if we are already on this issue, then the secondary discussion should be (again) about the party members themselves and their part and role in the game. See I don't want that available party members would be some strangers that we meet and all of a sudden decide to travel with them out of the blue. I want each of them to be very important and connected to the main plot or the player somehow, or to special circumstances that bring people together like being in a dungeon or other original methods. This is important because again, I don't assemble a party in role playing games while taking major consideration to the "well rounding". I do take consideration of that, but only via a minor proportion. The most important aspect for me in party members are how they are connected to me and the plot. In each of the Bioware game for example (and I state them because I really love the emphasize and depths they put on party members and plot) then I always travel with such important party members and if we take the Baldur's gate series as the relevant infinity engine example then as I stated before, in shadows of Amn I always took with me Jaheira, Minsc, Yoshimo and Imoen: Cause I felt they are the most close to me since we all kind of started together in Irenicus' dungeon. It was "us" against "the world" and they each had a reason to pursue Irenicus and save Imoen. Later when I got a chance to play the first BG game (cause I played the 2nd first) I obviously took with me Imoen, Jaheira with khalid and Minsc with Dynaheir, cause that was the "Canon" option (if I wouldn't have known that for example, I wouldn't have necessarily taken Minsc and Dynaheir in BG1 since they had no special connection to the player in the first game). It doesn't mean I don't want to know other party members, I do, and in BG2 for example I traveled and swapped the available slots all the time and each playthrough, that's just how I play "role-playing", it's not only about the "classes" there is a role for the player via a plot and story and THAT aspect is more important to me. P.S. The way to do it, is avoiding the fatal "good" vs. "evil" aspects, and make a grey world with a mature plot, like the GRRM song of ice and fire series, or the conflicted party in the "dragonlance" series, which had interesting and grey characters like Reistlin. That way it would be logical to meet and travel with ALL available party members at some point in the game, while at the end we and the plot and the conflicts would come to a final conclusion. That's why I want the developers to somehow "force" upon us the option to meet and travel with all available party members (while still leaving the option to travel most of the time with 1 party for who ever prefers it like Tsuga C)

No, it came to the exact point and discussion I wanted it to come to. Tsuga C finally started to discuss about what I put my emphasize on from the beginning and the reason I started this thread. He prefers to assemble 1 party and stick with it all the game and focus on well rounding between the classes, and just like Lephys said, he would be very upset to find out that his rouge that he put a lot of time and energy into for example is a traitor that has to leave him after all the effort he put into him (like the Yoshimo case for instance in BG2:SOA). Others also claimed that such a turn of events would cost re-playability (cause we would know what happens to certain party members after the first play). I claim that I understand the issues that they rose, but I still think and prefer characters with depth and special plot events, similar to the "rouge traitor Yoshimo" event (but not only: I gave other examples that don't mean permanent goodbye to party members, but only a temporary seperation), since it makes the game (plot) more realistic and more fun, and it also allows us to experience other available party members and helps us go around the 6 party members lock of the infinity engine. If you have anything further to add to this issue, or support one of the sides above, I would really like to hear, because most of this thread (unfortunately) was about a secondary part of the problem and discussion above: the "camp issue", and not the primary issue which is the conflict above and that is the reason I started this thread to begin with and I don't think this issue was discussed enough yet. I would like to hear all the opinions about it.

Look up "Fallacy of Extension". I am unaware of anything like that being said by either myself or someone from Obsidian. Here's what was said, "All classes start out with bonuses in the skills that their classes most commonly use, but players can choose to reinforce or play against that top. If you want to make a paladin who delights in picking locks, you can do that and get a lot of utility out of the skill -- though the character will never be quite as good as a rogue who specializes in it." What this means is that there might be some doors, traps, chests, etc. that it takes a rogue to open or disarm. You might be able to use force or magic to overcome the challenge in question, but this may have undesirable consequences (e.g. destroying contents, alerting nearby opponents). If they were part of the main storyline, such obstacles wouldn't be game stoppers, but they might make things more difficult for those without a highly skilled rogue. If they occur in an optional sidequest, you just might need that high-skill rogue if you're a completionist who can't stand not being able to do all there is to do and loot all there is to loot. And here's where it was mentioned. And here's the rest of the quote: "We hope that these approaches use the strengths of a "role-ready" class system while allowing players a large amount of helpful flexibility in how they develop characters over a (hopefully) long and fruitful adventuring career." I don't mind that the rouge would be the best in his obvious skills, as long as it doesn't mean we MUST have a rouge in order to finish the game. Again it works quite well with what I suggested: That we would be able to travel for some time without a rouge, because that rouge is part of a realistic and interesting story line and he either had to leave us for a while for his own personal quest, fell into a ditch and we think he died, was kidnapped by the antagonist in a certain dungeon, really died and can't be raised (but later surprisingly comes back to help us) and etc. and etc. And while he is gone we found a new friend to travel with, and she is very nice and funny and becomes part of the group as well ! ^_^ Oh and when our beloved rouge comes back to us, we have a new spot ready because our party had to split up for some reason (because we decided to do that) so now our rouge can meet the new friend we found from before AND we have extra room for new friends we might have left somewhere. Listen. Obviously this should mainly be implemented during the open parts of the campaign, and again only if the player wants to, since most group splitting and etc. should be decided by the player. If the player refuses to accept new members all the time and also refuses to split then the game mechanic would not force (or force less) separations. But we most absolutely should not get stuck with the same people 24/7. In BG2:SOA the game expected you to take Yoshimo to spellhold and that he would be replaced by Imoen. NO MATTER HOW YOU PLAYED IT, and even if you didn't take him to spellhold, Yoshimo was a traitor and lost for ever. These are the situations and events I am talking about and expecting to see in PE (including original solutions for the obvious: "what if you didn't take Yoshimo to spellhold" problem, preferably in the manner I suggested earlier), events that involve your party members and that are inevitable and unexpected (even if only temporary). Not more, not less, and from as many party members as possible: The more the better.

And besides I don't understand your vigorous antagonism. In almost every adventure features that involve a group questing together: books, films etc., they usually get separated at some point until they meet again. It's part of the thrill and fun. It makes the plot more interesting. Some events should be beyond our will and control. It makes us care. And yes, some of us prefer plot over class features. Or more accurately we don't see a reason to force us to take certain classes. Healing and lock picking should not be restricted to 1 class alone each. It has no value at all.

Classes are not a problem, they're a feature. If you disagree, then P:E might not be the game for you. It's already been stated that the various classes will not have their primary functions usurped by other classes (e.g. rogues will be the best lock pickers in the game). Others might be passable in the primary skill/feat of another class, but the class distinction exists for a reason and will be maintained. How I love all the "it's not the game for you" responses, like people feel it's their own baby. It's not. Trust me, I'm sure you're gonna dislike many features of this game as much as I will, and vice versa. That's how it works in a jolly little democracy and representative rule. Now second I would like to see where it was stated (or more accurately HOW it was stated), because even if the best lock picker is a thief, it shouldn't mean you MUST have a thief in order to finish the game, since other classes and abilities would have some kind of lock picking ability, enough to finish the game, which is MUCH MORE THEN FINE by me Especially if it means I could and would be forced to swap companions now and then (because my thief got sick of me, or had to go, or died, or got lost, or was kidnapped, or betrayed me or what ever else the developers want). Since 1 of the the spiritual fathers of this game is BG2:SOA, then I'm sure we would experience some story and plot depth, beyond the make a party and stick with it all game and kick out people due to no room. Every party NPC should be available and important to the plot from the time we meet them, until the very end. I would like to know what happened to each of them in the epilogue (assuming I met them and traveled with them). I do agree that if somebody wants to, then he should have the opportunity to travel with 1 full group (and "well-rounded") but that should not come at a cost to the other players in this thread which support what I stated in some kind of fashion,

I really hope the developers would implement the separation sequence somehow. For example for who ever read the dragonlance books, the adventurers in the book get separated at 1 point into 2 group and each group experiences it's own journey for a while until they meet up again later (while some of them dream about the others). Maybe this kind of method could also be implemented somehow at 1 point in the game: and in it we (the player) could play the other group from time to time via "visions" about them. That could be an interesting sequence. Anyhow I could think of many many more ways to make us experience a lot of party members and not just the core 5 we are locked to travel with in each given moment, and I believe the developers have enough time to think about such options and implement them themselves.

I most certainly hope that we cannot enjoy everything that every companion has to offer during a single playthough. If we were able to do so, then that implies that there's not going to be all that much substance to several of the companions, probably the last two or three to be encountered. How so? Although it'd be nice to meet all of them in Chapter 1 of the game, I'm sure that at least a couple of them won't be available until roughly the mid-point of the campaign. As we have less time with them, they're likely to have less content and interaction than the companion(s) who are available from the get-go. Concerning replay value, regardless of the personalities and content associated with each companion, the very existance of at least one each of the Core Four classes ensures the player that they'll be able to cobble together a well-rounded party. This is key as it allows the player to choose to be any class desired without having to worry about getting stuck with a party that's too strong in one area and too weak in another. Sure, it's always possible to create whomever you need in the Hall of Adventurers, but those companions will be without dialogue or personalities, thus making them nothing more than useful automatons. I prefer companions who are much more lively than that. It would be a terrible mistake for the developers to make us be crucially dependent on a certain class. It is a very crucial point, cause we should not get stuck with somebody we do not want to only because of "well-rounding". The crucial elements of: tanking, healing, damage, rouge skills, should be evenly distributed among all classes and also special personal abilities and skills like first aid for example or door bashing etc. That way, we can go around that problem of "classes". So yea, some of us want to be able to experience all companions (the ones we like that is) since the problem is exactly the artificial 6 members party lock. Again I want to play the adventure and the plot and the story, less the "well-rounding" (even though that part is a lot of fun as well).

I think that replayability is very important, but I also want a very interesting plot that would involve the party members. You might think that a yoshimo-imoen sequence is boring after 1 play, and you may be right, but I prefer that, then having mute and anemic party members who follow you around all the time like puppies (untill you tell them go wait over there and be quite) and don't even have their own opinion, and that nothing nothing, ever happens to them: dying, betraying you, being kidnapped, getting lost and separated etc. I mean this IS an adventure. Things should always happen out of the blue and surprise you and work exactly the opposite way you planned and if the cost is replayability then so be it. I want to feel like I am on a REAL adventure, like I am reading a good book. That's how I felt playing BG2:SOA and it never stopped me from playing it over several times again.

I don't want a mechanic that would force you to travel with whom you don't want to, only one that would make the game realistic and ALLOW you that option: party members would die, leave for their own business, betray you, would get lost, would suggest to split up and etc. And etc. And etc. If you don't want to take other available NPC's then you won't, the ones who only left you for a temporary time would come back later. As for the Yoshi/Imogen sequence that could have been handled easy: if you don't take Yoshi, then 1/2 of your party members would go lost from you in spellhold, and then rejoin you later, and the exact time would depend on whether you take Imoen or not. If you take her then you would rejoin the lost members only near the end of the underdark, if you don't take her, you find them back very fast. That kind of mechanism.

LOL It's funny how you all discuss something I didn't mean (I asked your thoughts about something different and I quite stated it in all my posts). In any case about the stronghold, the party members should have their own strongholds. There was a similar mod being built for BG2. For example Jaheira would have been the druid master and would take it's responsibilities if you are not a druid and if you and she desire it. http://forums.gibberlings3.net/index.php?s=3b3b990cce0a67d1e3a305450798c647&showforum=77 So I fully support that most NPC's would go somewhere and would find their own place in the world somehow like the DA2 system which is better. The DA:O system of campfire should also be used somehow, but for banters, not for your "regroup" place. For that you should have a stronghold and until you get it, NPC's would simply go back to where you found them to a tavern or etc. This way again it would also help what I meant to begin with: that the plot would force upon us situations in which party members would leave us for their own business (for example their stronghold business) so we would have time to travel with other members. In any case I would like that somehow we would avoid all of this to begin with by the forcing above. In most of the plot I think that some NPC's should be busy. I don't want us to come to a situation that we need to choose and kick somebody out just because of space, the less we have that situation the better the plot would be in my opinion. This of course in case we want to travel with all the available companions. If we don't then we would simply refuse to accept new friends after we have a full party and the game would not force upon us separations, or we would experience less separations.

Another good option that would work in a linear sequence for example: (like the Spellhold-Shark City-Underdark sequence in BG2:SOA): If you go on that sequence with a full party, and then you meet there a new possible companion, and you interact with him and you want him to join the party, instead of kicking somebody out, either you (or one of the party members) would suggest to split up (why? depends on where you are and the circumstances) so then if you agree than you send 2 or 3 of the companions and continue with the rest, and the splitting up would also have an effect on the game and the plot and you will meet the other group later... These kind of solutions are the best I think. How will it work? Example: You are in the underdark with a full party and you meet a draw who asks for your help to escape the underdark and he is a possible companion (he helped save you and he also knows the villian and that is his connection to the plot and to the player) you have 3 options: - if you tell him go away: then he will go away but possibly come back later in another part of the game - if you tell him, ok but wait, then he will wait and if you don't come back to him then he either disappears for ever or again comes back later in another part of the game (with different consequences maybe) - if you told him ok i want you (or came back for him), then immediately your group splits up (one of you party members or the draw himself suggest it and you don't have a choice on the matter). Why? numerous reasons: "we are to many and can be detected", "we will go scout ahead and meet you later", etc. - or since the developers knew you are going to meet this possible companion, they forced split your party to begin with: 2 of your companions are lost after they fall into a ditch (they won't die and join you later) which leaves 2 open slots for the draw to join up.

I agree to all of this, but again I put my center idea not on that. But on the fact that I don't want my companions (ad least most of them) to be under "contract" I want them to be: 1. A substantial part of the plot and of the player (family members, old friends, you were with them under prison and need to escape, they are your antagonist but you convert them etc.) 2. "And the plot thickens": the plot and the game revolves also around them: Imoen was kidnapped and was later discovered to be also a bhaalspwan which bodhi stole her soul. Yoshimo was working for Irenicus. These event force you to change your party and experience other companions (without telling them: "oh I am sorry, I have no room go wait in the tavern where you like to drink).

I think the DA2 system was nice, but I still prefer other forced driven situations. Like the Yoshimo betrayal or Imonen kidnapping, or how Jaheira left you at one point due to her own quest. I can think of dozens of more similar circumstances. This way you can miss your companions and feel you are on a real adventure.

I don't know how the text changed, it wasn't done intentionally ^_^ In any case I said that a camp is the least worst solution, but it is still bad, I would prefer something else (or more accurately a combination with the following): A different mechanism or simple story dynamics is needed: The game should intentionally force upon you certain situation in order to mix and change your party all the time and that way experience everything and make you feel like a real and living world. Like: Party members leave for a while on personal matters, betrayals, they are being kidnapped, they go lost and then rejoin you (like Dragon Age 2 for example), they stay somewhere to help the locals for a while and then join you. This could work more easily if all party NPCs would be involved with the player and the main plot somehow (family, old friends, similar situations like being captives somewhere, villains who change their mind and join you etc.). I mostly agree with you JOG but still I'm not afraid of not having a "mage" or a "thief" or being forced with any kind of party, cause they are making a new system and I don't think the classes should be arranged in a way that would make your game very hard if you lack 1 or 2 of the "regular" aspects like "healer" or "thief". You should be able to play without them if you like (with special self healing abilities for each class or being able to bash doors and locks without a thief etc.).