Which sidekick would you most want to see become a full companion in a future Pillars game or DLC?

[aksrasjel]

The thing is, she'd definitely approve highly of someone properly putting the dead to rest. The problem is that they use "stock reactions" for certain levels of approval, which leads to this hilariously macabre reaction. If they'd have checked whether their reactions fit the circumstances, this wouldn't have happened.

I just don't get why they bothered with all those "stock reactions" in the first place - for bigger immersion, I guess? Beacuse honestly, why couldn't they simply go with "Xoti approves +1" stock prompt instead?

[Wormerine]

I just don't get why they bothered with all those "stock reactions" in the first place - for bigger immersion, I guess? Beacuse honestly, why couldn't they simply go with "Xoti approves +1" stock prompt instead?

Pretty much. Which I like a lot until something really odd will happen (like Xoti clapping and laughing when burying her Eothas' priests buddies)

[algroth]

How about all of them and more. The game has far too few companions to form a different group with similar setup each time. I'm going to go ahead and grab the BG series as a comparison yet again. In that series you have a multitude of characters with the same classes, but different alignment so you can pick your party around your playing style. This is much more rewarding. Of course it would also force more spoken parts, but yeah I think it is worth it. Give me three priests, three ciphers, three fighters and so on all with different background and drive and I'm all over that. I'm sure many of you would be. Replayability ahoy.

The issue there is that companions in the Baldur's Gate games aren't really all that fleshed out across the board (or at all if you look back at the first game). The more correct comparison would be Planescape: Torment in this case, and that game for example has half as many characters, yet clearly places its emphasis on depth over breadth instead. Similarly several other games that fancied themselves spiritual successors opted for less companions that were more fleshed out and reactive instead (see the Dragon Age games, Pillars, Neverwinter Nights 2, etc).

[gkathellar]

I just don't get why they bothered with all those "stock reactions" in the first place - for bigger immersion, I guess? Beacuse honestly, why couldn't they simply go with "Xoti approves +1" stock prompt instead?

 

I think it's because PoE1 would have had relevant characters give various one-liners of approval or disapproval - little immersion-enhancing interjections in the IE tradition - but Deadfire's full VO makes that a lot more difficult to do on any kind of wide scale.

[AeonsLegend]

 

How about all of them and more. The game has far too few companions to form a different group with similar setup each time. I'm going to go ahead and grab the BG series as a comparison yet again. In that series you have a multitude of characters with the same classes, but different alignment so you can pick your party around your playing style. This is much more rewarding. Of course it would also force more spoken parts, but yeah I think it is worth it. Give me three priests, three ciphers, three fighters and so on all with different background and drive and I'm all over that. I'm sure many of you would be. Replayability ahoy.

The issue there is that companions in the Baldur's Gate games aren't really all that fleshed out across the board (or at all if you look back at the first game). The more correct comparison would be Planescape: Torment in this case, and that game for example has half as many characters, yet clearly places its emphasis on depth over breadth instead. Similarly several other games that fancied themselves spiritual successors opted for less companions that were more fleshed out and reactive instead (see the Dragon Age games, Pillars, Neverwinter Nights 2, etc).

 

The issue with your statement is that you limit your choice for this game to how another game implemented it. In my proposal all characters are fleshed out.

[CENIC]

The issue with your statement is that you limit your choice for this game to how another game implemented it. In my proposal all characters are fleshed out.

But that's a pipe dream.

 

Obsidian said 7 fully-fleshed companions is too expensive. How do you expect them to afford 12?

[Taevyr]

 

 

How about all of them and more. The game has far too few companions to form a different group with similar setup each time. I'm going to go ahead and grab the BG series as a comparison yet again. In that series you have a multitude of characters with the same classes, but different alignment so you can pick your party around your playing style. This is much more rewarding. Of course it would also force more spoken parts, but yeah I think it is worth it. Give me three priests, three ciphers, three fighters and so on all with different background and drive and I'm all over that. I'm sure many of you would be. Replayability ahoy.

The issue there is that companions in the Baldur's Gate games aren't really all that fleshed out across the board (or at all if you look back at the first game). The more correct comparison would be Planescape: Torment in this case, and that game for example has half as many characters, yet clearly places its emphasis on depth over breadth instead. Similarly several other games that fancied themselves spiritual successors opted for less companions that were more fleshed out and reactive instead (see the Dragon Age games, Pillars, Neverwinter Nights 2, etc).

 

The issue with your statement is that you limit your choice for this game to how another game implemented it. In my proposal all characters are fleshed out.

 

In that case I hope you have plenty of money to throw at Obsidian and a willingness to wait at least 7-8 years for them to finish writing all their companions, because it'd be a hot mess otherwise.

[Skazz]

 

I just don't get why they bothered with all those "stock reactions" in the first place - for bigger immersion, I guess? Beacuse honestly, why couldn't they simply go with "Xoti approves +1" stock prompt instead?

Pretty much. Which I like a lot until something really odd will happen (like Xoti clapping and laughing when burying her Eothas' priests buddies)

 

 

I feel terrible for laughing at this, but the mental image is priceless.

[Stephen Unsworth-Mitchell]

What if we had 6 companions and when find the companion you choose class and subclass.

 

That would remove need for sidekicks give more for making the companion stories.

 

Simply ask which companions people want for POE 3.

[AeonsLegend]

 

 

 

How about all of them and more. The game has far too few companions to form a different group with similar setup each time. I'm going to go ahead and grab the BG series as a comparison yet again. In that series you have a multitude of characters with the same classes, but different alignment so you can pick your party around your playing style. This is much more rewarding. Of course it would also force more spoken parts, but yeah I think it is worth it. Give me three priests, three ciphers, three fighters and so on all with different background and drive and I'm all over that. I'm sure many of you would be. Replayability ahoy.

The issue there is that companions in the Baldur's Gate games aren't really all that fleshed out across the board (or at all if you look back at the first game). The more correct comparison would be Planescape: Torment in this case, and that game for example has half as many characters, yet clearly places its emphasis on depth over breadth instead. Similarly several other games that fancied themselves spiritual successors opted for less companions that were more fleshed out and reactive instead (see the Dragon Age games, Pillars, Neverwinter Nights 2, etc).

 

The issue with your statement is that you limit your choice for this game to how another game implemented it. In my proposal all characters are fleshed out.

 

In that case I hope you have plenty of money to throw at Obsidian and a willingness to wait at least 7-8 years for them to finish writing all their companions, because it'd be a hot mess otherwise.

 

I like the way you think of everything as a roadblock.

 

The topic asks what you would like to see. I post what I like to see and here come the people complaining on why it cannot be done. Lol. Classic.

Edited June 3, 2018 by AeonsLegend

[Carmir]

Mirke or Fassina, voted Mirke.

[algroth]

 

 

 

 

How about all of them and more. The game has far too few companions to form a different group with similar setup each time. I'm going to go ahead and grab the BG series as a comparison yet again. In that series you have a multitude of characters with the same classes, but different alignment so you can pick your party around your playing style. This is much more rewarding. Of course it would also force more spoken parts, but yeah I think it is worth it. Give me three priests, three ciphers, three fighters and so on all with different background and drive and I'm all over that. I'm sure many of you would be. Replayability ahoy.

 

The issue there is that companions in the Baldur's Gate games aren't really all that fleshed out across the board (or at all if you look back at the first game). The more correct comparison would be Planescape: Torment in this case, and that game for example has half as many characters, yet clearly places its emphasis on depth over breadth instead. Similarly several other games that fancied themselves spiritual successors opted for less companions that were more fleshed out and reactive instead (see the Dragon Age games, Pillars, Neverwinter Nights 2, etc).

The issue with your statement is that you limit your choice for this game to how another game implemented it. In my proposal all characters are fleshed out.

In that case I hope you have plenty of money to throw at Obsidian and a willingness to wait at least 7-8 years for them to finish writing all their companions, because it'd be a hot mess otherwise.

I like the way you think of everything as a roadblock.

 

The topic asks what you would like to see. I post what I like to see and here come the people complaining on why it cannot be done. Lol. Classic.

Explain, not complain. I don't think anyone here has anything against your proposition as an ideal - heck, I'd love it if it were possible - but have merely pointed out why it's not feasible. Resources are limited so one usually has to opt between depth or breadth. Sidekicks came around precisely as a compromise in order to offer a larger roster, yet as you see in practice, they hardly could be fleshed out to the same degree even a Baldur's Gate companion could.

[IndiraLightfoot]

Fassina! I loved her!

[handsomenat]

I was torn between Fassina, Konstanten and Ydwin.

 

I really like Rekke but I think he works just fine as a sidekick - he is not really involved in any of the Eastern Reach/Deadfire drama like most of companions. I think it could be more difficult to integrate him into the relationship system etc.

 

I personally don't care for Mirke, to me she could have been a crew member, not a sidekick. I like orlans and a female orlan in you team would be great but my bias has its limits .

 

Now, Konstanten also works fine as a sidekick - you don't know that much about him and his motivations are simple. But I think he could be expanded in interesting ways.

 

Fassina's involvement kinda feels like it ends abruptly after you do the quest for her? She doesn't even say anything to you. Again, I think she could do fine as a companion.

 

Ultimately I voted for Ydwin because she actually doesn't feel that great as just a sidekick. She has her whole soul thing going on and she would fit well into the plot. Now she's just stuck with unresolved issues.

Edited June 3, 2018 by handsomenat

[aksrasjel]

Explain, not complain. I don't think anyone here has anything against your proposition as an ideal - heck, I'd love it if it were possible - but have merely pointed out why it's not feasible. Resources are limited so one usually has to opt between depth or breadth. Sidekicks came around precisely as a compromise in order to offer a larger roster, yet as you see in practice, they hardly could be fleshed out to the same degree even a Baldur's Gate companion could.

 

Which actually makes me legitimely - and absolutely unironically - wonder what makes those companions so expensive and resource-heavy. It's an isometric game, so creating 3D animations and cutscenes for companion interactions is off the table. Most of the interactions are just walls of text, which - and correct me if I'm wrong - while certainly at times time-consuming are not that expensive to create. And - unless my game bugged out horribly - companions don't have that much more content to them that would stand out of ordinary - compared to say, good, old Planescape Torment, with companion quests being short and simple "go to point A, talk to NPC B, kill monster C" most of the time. Is it a simple matter of manpower? Or is implementation of those walls of text into the game difficult later on? Is this infamous relationship system to blame? I understand it's supposed to be really reactive, but outside of Xoti randomly trying to sleep with half of my party I haven't noticed anything that much simpler system wouldn't handle. Or is it a matter of voice acting - which can actually be really expensive? I am legitemely curious. 

[gkathellar]

Writing is hard, and writing as a team requires consistency and cross-referencing. And then it gets worse because you add full VO.

[algroth]

I'd say the time it takes to write, to model and make art for, and to code all of that dialogue into the game is bound to take plenty of time in and of itself, but more so when you add variables like the relationship/reputation system into the mix, the full voice-over, any potential unique kits and abilities they may possess (see Tekehu for example) and so on. Keep in mind that Planescape: Torment had the same amount of companions as Deadfire too.

[AeonsLegend]

 

 

 

 

 

How about all of them and more. The game has far too few companions to form a different group with similar setup each time. I'm going to go ahead and grab the BG series as a comparison yet again. In that series you have a multitude of characters with the same classes, but different alignment so you can pick your party around your playing style. This is much more rewarding. Of course it would also force more spoken parts, but yeah I think it is worth it. Give me three priests, three ciphers, three fighters and so on all with different background and drive and I'm all over that. I'm sure many of you would be. Replayability ahoy.

The issue there is that companions in the Baldur's Gate games aren't really all that fleshed out across the board (or at all if you look back at the first game). The more correct comparison would be Planescape: Torment in this case, and that game for example has half as many characters, yet clearly places its emphasis on depth over breadth instead. Similarly several other games that fancied themselves spiritual successors opted for less companions that were more fleshed out and reactive instead (see the Dragon Age games, Pillars, Neverwinter Nights 2, etc).

The issue with your statement is that you limit your choice for this game to how another game implemented it. In my proposal all characters are fleshed out.

In that case I hope you have plenty of money to throw at Obsidian and a willingness to wait at least 7-8 years for them to finish writing all their companions, because it'd be a hot mess otherwise.

I like the way you think of everything as a roadblock.

 

The topic asks what you would like to see. I post what I like to see and here come the people complaining on why it cannot be done. Lol. Classic.

Explain, not complain. I don't think anyone here has anything against your proposition as an ideal - heck, I'd love it if it were possible - but have merely pointed out why it's not feasible. Resources are limited so one usually has to opt between depth or breadth. Sidekicks came around precisely as a compromise in order to offer a larger roster, yet as you see in practice, they hardly could be fleshed out to the same degree even a Baldur's Gate companion could.

 

Sigh, if everyone in the world would limit their thinking the way you guys are doing then we wouldn't have airplanes, computers, movies and video games right now. 

 

Seriously though, you throw the lack of funds at me as if it is an undisputable fact that there is no way around. Come on. What if. What IF Obsidian all of a sudden has more funds to throw at this game. (God forbid, this is impossible I know! lol. Smh) What if then they look at the forums and see what people want? Oh they only want 1 single more companion. Let's add that. And they think they're doing us a favor, while they are in actuallity responding to a limited view of something that people want, but are afraid to express because they didn't think it was possible. Broaden your mind man. Stop living limiting yourself and ask for what you really want. It doesn't matter if the devs can't do it. Hell, 99.9999% of the people here don't actually know what is and isn't possible at any given time at Obsidian. The only people that can do so work at Obsidian and they will make their choices based on the funding and resources they have. Maybe they will sway towards more companions and not do that awesome CGI trailer that no one really cared for anyway.

[SimonCharming]

Ydwin most definitely. And, I thought full VO wasn't supposed to be a problem...

[algroth]

 

 

 

 

 

 

How about all of them and more. The game has far too few companions to form a different group with similar setup each time. I'm going to go ahead and grab the BG series as a comparison yet again. In that series you have a multitude of characters with the same classes, but different alignment so you can pick your party around your playing style. This is much more rewarding. Of course it would also force more spoken parts, but yeah I think it is worth it. Give me three priests, three ciphers, three fighters and so on all with different background and drive and I'm all over that. I'm sure many of you would be. Replayability ahoy.

 

The issue there is that companions in the Baldur's Gate games aren't really all that fleshed out across the board (or at all if you look back at the first game). The more correct comparison would be Planescape: Torment in this case, and that game for example has half as many characters, yet clearly places its emphasis on depth over breadth instead. Similarly several other games that fancied themselves spiritual successors opted for less companions that were more fleshed out and reactive instead (see the Dragon Age games, Pillars, Neverwinter Nights 2, etc).

The issue with your statement is that you limit your choice for this game to how another game implemented it. In my proposal all characters are fleshed out.

In that case I hope you have plenty of money to throw at Obsidian and a willingness to wait at least 7-8 years for them to finish writing all their companions, because it'd be a hot mess otherwise.

I like the way you think of everything as a roadblock.

 

The topic asks what you would like to see. I post what I like to see and here come the people complaining on why it cannot be done. Lol. Classic.

Explain, not complain. I don't think anyone here has anything against your proposition as an ideal - heck, I'd love it if it were possible - but have merely pointed out why it's not feasible. Resources are limited so one usually has to opt between depth or breadth. Sidekicks came around precisely as a compromise in order to offer a larger roster, yet as you see in practice, they hardly could be fleshed out to the same degree even a Baldur's Gate companion could.

Sigh, if everyone in the world would limit their thinking the way you guys are doing then we wouldn't have airplanes, computers, movies and video games right now. 

 

Seriously though, you throw the lack of funds at me as if it is an undisputable fact that there is no way around. Come on. What if. What IF Obsidian all of a sudden has more funds to throw at this game. (God forbid, this is impossible I know! lol. Smh) What if then they look at the forums and see what people want? Oh they only want 1 single more companion. Let's add that. And they think they're doing us a favor, while they are in actuallity responding to a limited view of something that people want, but are afraid to express because they didn't think it was possible. Broaden your mind man. Stop living limiting yourself and ask for what you really want. It doesn't matter if the devs can't do it. Hell, 99.9999% of the people here don't actually know what is and isn't possible at any given time at Obsidian. The only people that can do so work at Obsidian and they will make their choices based on the funding and resources they have. Maybe they will sway towards more companions and not do that awesome CGI trailer that no one really cared for anyway.

The devs have spoken about the work it takes to make a companion several times before, so we do have an idea, if not the full picture, about what Obsidian can and can't do, and what they're willing to do or not. Furthermore, dreaming is fine but I assure you that planes and videogames weren't made just by dreaming them: if you want to see your dream actually come to fruition in some fashion, you have to propose a more tangible means of doing it; otherwise all we're doing is the equivalent of saying "I want to be rich", or worse, you're making a demand so grand and vague that their response may well be "more sidekicks", and completely miss the mark to what you and everyone else want, if they don't ignore it altogether as a thoroughly unfeasible request.

[AeonsLegend]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

How about all of them and more. The game has far too few companions to form a different group with similar setup each time. I'm going to go ahead and grab the BG series as a comparison yet again. In that series you have a multitude of characters with the same classes, but different alignment so you can pick your party around your playing style. This is much more rewarding. Of course it would also force more spoken parts, but yeah I think it is worth it. Give me three priests, three ciphers, three fighters and so on all with different background and drive and I'm all over that. I'm sure many of you would be. Replayability ahoy.

The issue there is that companions in the Baldur's Gate games aren't really all that fleshed out across the board (or at all if you look back at the first game). The more correct comparison would be Planescape: Torment in this case, and that game for example has half as many characters, yet clearly places its emphasis on depth over breadth instead. Similarly several other games that fancied themselves spiritual successors opted for less companions that were more fleshed out and reactive instead (see the Dragon Age games, Pillars, Neverwinter Nights 2, etc).

The issue with your statement is that you limit your choice for this game to how another game implemented it. In my proposal all characters are fleshed out.

In that case I hope you have plenty of money to throw at Obsidian and a willingness to wait at least 7-8 years for them to finish writing all their companions, because it'd be a hot mess otherwise.

I like the way you think of everything as a roadblock.

 

The topic asks what you would like to see. I post what I like to see and here come the people complaining on why it cannot be done. Lol. Classic.

Explain, not complain. I don't think anyone here has anything against your proposition as an ideal - heck, I'd love it if it were possible - but have merely pointed out why it's not feasible. Resources are limited so one usually has to opt between depth or breadth. Sidekicks came around precisely as a compromise in order to offer a larger roster, yet as you see in practice, they hardly could be fleshed out to the same degree even a Baldur's Gate companion could.

Sigh, if everyone in the world would limit their thinking the way you guys are doing then we wouldn't have airplanes, computers, movies and video games right now. 

 

Seriously though, you throw the lack of funds at me as if it is an undisputable fact that there is no way around. Come on. What if. What IF Obsidian all of a sudden has more funds to throw at this game. (God forbid, this is impossible I know! lol. Smh) What if then they look at the forums and see what people want? Oh they only want 1 single more companion. Let's add that. And they think they're doing us a favor, while they are in actuallity responding to a limited view of something that people want, but are afraid to express because they didn't think it was possible. Broaden your mind man. Stop living limiting yourself and ask for what you really want. It doesn't matter if the devs can't do it. Hell, 99.9999% of the people here don't actually know what is and isn't possible at any given time at Obsidian. The only people that can do so work at Obsidian and they will make their choices based on the funding and resources they have. Maybe they will sway towards more companions and not do that awesome CGI trailer that no one really cared for anyway.

The devs have spoken about the work it takes to make a companion several times before, so we do have an idea, if not the full picture, about what Obsidian can and can't do, and what they're willing to do or not. Furthermore, dreaming is fine but I assure you that planes and videogames weren't made just by dreaming them: if you want to see your dream actually come to fruition in some fashion, you have to propose a more tangible means of doing it; otherwise all we're doing is the equivalent of saying "I want to be rich", or worse, you're making a demand so grand and vague that their response may well be "more sidekicks", and completely miss the mark to what you and everyone else want, if they don't ignore it altogether as a thoroughly unfeasible request.

 

You see, I don't attack what other people want, but people feel the need to attack what I want because of an inkling of knowledge they have to say it aint possible. I'm not the one living in a dream, you are simply living in a world where everything just isn't possible. The question was what I wanted, and I gave it. You want to be limited because the devs say we can only do "this". And even though "this" might change in the future you cling to this for no reason.

[Wormerine]

At one point Josh said that it take multiple weeks of dedicated companion work to make the happen (purely from writers perspective). Considering how interactions work in Deadfire, every added companion increases workload for all of them. I have no idea how writing works, so I can't even guess what stages such companion comes through. We have been told it's a lot. I would welcome Deadfire with 10+ or 20+ companions. 

The thing I wonder about is, if relationship system was a worthwhile investment as I am sure it took resources and lots of work to make/write. I will let Obsidian work on it a bit more, before I fully make up my mind.

[Skazz]

This is probably going to be a point of contention, but do we really need more companions? Or more sidekicks even?

 

Right now, pretty much every companion (aside from PoE 1 guys) has some geopolitical grounding in the Archipelago's faction war, and adding someone really out-of-context and exotic would only make this unnecessarily murky. Doubly so since we know that Deadfire's DLCs won't be White March-style "and now for something completely different" expansions, but incremental additions to the base game.

 

I know it's a natural desire to want more of a good thing, but I feel like there is a certain tipping point at which a ship stops being a ship and becomes a clown car full of unnecessary dudes who both are and aren't the crew and seem to exist only to make the player happy. Atton from KotOR 2 once complained about his co-companions treating the Ebon Hawk like a pleasure yacht, and while I imagine some people would really be into that kind of thing, I really can't see myself enjoying that in Deadfire.

 

If anything, I'd love to see them add more depth to the existing characters. They barely get any story space to breathe as is. Otherwise, ehhh.

Edited June 3, 2018 by Skazz

[Lexx]

I just want some generic in-dialog commentary for the sidekicks. They don't need their own quests and stuff, just a little more personality when interacting with the environment.

[Stephen Unsworth-Mitchell]

If I was choosing complete list companions for POE 3 

 

Devil of Coroc

Zahua

Mirke

Eder

Grieving Mother

Fassina

 

I have it so free choice class and sub class for each, and therefore do away with side kicks. Give 6 companions so really good quests and interactions few really good companions better then lots choose from but not so interesting.