Just got Gothic 3...

[Spider]

Why is D&D terminology used to describe a non-D&D game? The distinction Volo describes between henchmen and expert hirelings is one I have never seen outside of D&D. (or in D&D for that matter, but that's because I don't exactly read a lot of D&D rules minutae)

 

Personally I make a distinction between Henchmen and NPC party members.

 

Henchmen are mindless followers that you have no control over andthat you don't really interact with in any significant way. Why they're traveling with you (if you paid them or whatever) doesn't factor into it, just their behaviour. NWN has henchmen, as does Fallout.

 

NPC party members is to a degree controlled by the player and, more importantly, have a personality and a higher level of interaction. NWN2 has NPC party members, as does KotOR and Baldur's Gate.

 

So with that definition, G3 has henchmen and not NPC party members. The henchmen are basically tag-alongs that get in the way during combat (although they're not quite as hopeless as in Oblivion).

[Volourn]

"Why is D&D terminology used to describe a non-D&D game?"

 

That's obvious. Because the people who tend toa rgue you with me are mistakenly using D&D terminology to describe other games. On top of this, the D&D terminology itself is based off definitions of the terms. I believe during another one of these 'arguments' someone else had actually shared the 'real world non D&D' defintions of these terms.

 

In essence, your definition relies on little fact and is more opinion base dwhich means your definition is useless. Afterall, what one defines as 'significant' can surely differe from another's.

 

 

"Henchmen are mindless followers that you have no control over andthat you don't really interact with in any significant way."

 

Outside of direct control; your description doens't fit either FO or NWN1 npcs. You ahve quite a bit of control on how NWN1 OC npcs act. And, you do interatc with them. Significantly is plainly opinion based and means nothing. If I were to use that I would say that while most PST npcs are (using your defintion) are 'party members'; that stupid fire mage is not since I didn't feel any significant interatcion with him. NWN1 OC npcs have quests, you have some control over what they do, and you do interact with thm. Same with FO.

 

 

 

G3 has henchmen who are party members. As does NWN2. NWN2 henchmen are (to me) superior; but they both qualify as henchmenwho ar eparty members. NWN1 OC has Expert Hirelings who are party members.

 

Git it?

 

 

Morgoth: They'r eno different than say if one game had better grpahics than the other. G3 and NWN2 both have graphics; but G3's graphics are better. Both G3, and NWN2 have henchmen; but NWN2's is better.

 

Git it?

Edited December 22, 2006 by Volourn

[Spider]

I just object to you differing between expert hirelings and henchmen, since for all intents and purposes expert hirelings are henchmen. The reason why someone joins you is fairly insignificant, how they act matters more. It becomes even more confusing when in some game some followers follow you because you pay them, others because they like you. Fallout is a good example. Ian wants to be paid, Dogmeat doesn't. Or the other guy you can get (Tycho?). So according to your definition, Ian would be an expert hireling, while Tycho would be a henchman. And still, they are functionally identical in the game, so there should be a term that includes both.

 

As for my definitions, in my eyes they fit fairly well. I definitely don't recall having a degree of control over anyone in Fallout (Fallout 2, however, is another matter and to me those NPCs land somewhere inbetween). And I don't recall having much control over my henchmen in NWN either. But it's been a while so maybe it's more than I remember. Again, this is only about the OC, it's different in the expansions.

 

I'll admit that the interaction part isa bit fuzzy though. And it can probably be taken out. Actually it probably should even, since I'm saying that game mechanics is what matters.

[Morgoth]

Morgoth: They'r eno different than say if one game had better grpahics than the other. G3 and NWN2 both have graphics; but G3's graphics are better. Both G3, and NWN2 have henchmen; but NWN2's is better.

 

Git it?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's not a fair comparison. Graphics is required in both cases, but NPCs/Henchman or whatever you want to call them are design decisions. You let the G3 henchman away, you won't miss them. You let the NWN2 henchman away, the game drops into mediocre. I never really realized why PB insisted of having the henchman inside in the first place when they mostly make problems (getting stuck, AI problems etc.). They just could also leave them out. See? No importance at all. We won't miss them.

Edited December 22, 2006 by Morgoth

[Volourn]

"And I don't recall having much control over my henchmen in NWN either."

 

It depends on what you mean as 'much'. NWN1 OC gives more control over the jonables than, say, G3; but not as much, as say, a game like NWN2.

 

So.. would you qualify them as henchlins or hiremen? Hmmm...

 

I think the problem is that because BIo decided to (wrongly) used henchmen to define the NWN1 npcs; people who dislike the OC have mistakenly taken that to mean 'crappy joinable npc that PC can't control like a robot'.

 

I blame BIO for starting it. I blame Obsidian for following their trend. I blame the fans for being dumb enough to be brainwashed by them.

 

Even the 'control' part of your defintions doesn't help; because with words like 'much' or 'significant' are simply too opinion oreinted to really quantify. How much control does one need before being considered a 'party member' instead of a'henchmen' in your system? That's the problem.

 

At least, using D&D system which is the terminlogy that started all this (and is based on actual (defintions); at least the terms are concise and it's not a matter of opinion. That's why I prefer it; because it's not opinion based. It's just there. An npc is either a henchmen or expert hireling as well anyone that parties with you is a party member.

 

ie. G3 has both henchmen as well as those npcs who are temporary party members. Not really henchmen though as they aren't there long term ie. The rebel slave that first leads you to Okara is one of these.

 

 

"We won't miss them."

 

Don't speak for me. Even with G3's very limited henchmen; I still like the game more because they have them then if it didn't. It's all about options - soemthing that NWN2 forgot...

Edited December 22, 2006 by Volourn

[Morgoth]

Options that don't matter. G3 lacks of focused design. PB could also have let the henchman out and use that time for bugfixing instead... but alas, some devs always have to learn it through the hard way.

[Volourn]

I agree.. soemwhat. If you do things you should do things right. I mean.. they give the ability to give some basic instructions to your npcs including go away/come with/stay/give potion. It be nice if they allowed you to equip them.

 

btw, If you don't think that the npcs in G3 matter then why has PB boosted their surivieability in the enwest patch. If they were not considered 'importnat'.. why? Obviously, fans whined to them about the npcs or else there'd be no fixes.. Hmm...

 

And, yes, G3 henchmen do matter. Coosing to have one or not does chnage how you play the game - espicially combat and travel (usally for the negative for travel, lol).

 

Plus,. I love how Copper was brought into the party. And, yes, it's a party with 2. So meh. Cool beans.

[Morgoth]

btw, If you don't think that the npcs in G3 matter then why has PB boosted their surivieability in the enwest patch. If they were not considered 'importnat'.. why? Obviously, fans whined to them about the npcs or else there'd be no fixes.. Hmm...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Maybe because it looked stupid when a henchman got killed by a squirrel. Balance was always a weird thing in the Gothic games...

 

Edit: Oh and Gothic fans are no less moronic than let's say ES or Bio fans. They "demand" certain features and declare it as a canon. I don't now what outrage PB would have had to endure when hey just have left the Henchmen out.

For their next game (let's pray it's not G4) I hope they better learn from their failures. They're lucky they didn't end up like Troika....yet.

 

And, yes, G3 henchmen do matter. Coosing to have one or not does chnage how you play the game - espicially combat and travel (usally for the negative for travel, lol).

That I've never denied. They're useful to purge some enemies, but the question was whether they function as NWN2 NPCs, and that clearly would be a "no".

Edited December 22, 2006 by Morgoth

[Volourn]

"Maybe because it looked stupid when a henchman got killed by a squirrel. Balance was always a weird thing in the Gothic games..."

 

There ar eno squirrels in G3 so does not compute. Actually, Copper (the only permenant party member I have seen yet) does ok. he doens't kill much; but he cna last a while since all he almost does is block incoming attacks. Heh. That's what i use him for. Let him keep the npcs busy while I fight one on one. This works when fighting masses of enemies. Hheh. Though; one wolf can kill him if it starts to knock him down... though, he can usually last long enough for me to get there..

 

 

"but the question was whether they function as NWN2 NPCs"

 

No. No it wasn't. The question was if G3 had joinable npcs. Once again, the answer is YES.

Edited December 22, 2006 by Volourn

[Morgoth]

So, and now what was this whole arguing all about?

[Volourn]

Heh. Go back and read from Jag's initial question. I answered and some bozoo went wacko on my butt and the topic spiraled from there. It was, and si fun!

 

Anyways, on Gothic 3: I am level 20, and am about to destroy the Montera orcs which means I'm just ahead of where I was when I had to restart the game because of the demo screw up. I'm not sure if I want to beat up those orcs yet. I mean go on to Gotha and deal with the evils there before dealing with Montera. Then, I'll go take out (or try to) those dragons near Cape Dun...

 

 

Edited December 22, 2006 by Volourn

[Berserk]

People, people! We are losing sight of the topic here and have forgotten the most important question: Are there any brothels in Gothic 3?

Edited December 22, 2006 by Berserk

[Spider]

At least, using D&D system which  is the terminlogy that started all this (and is based on actual (defintions); at least the terms are concise and it's not  a matter of opinion. That's why I prefer it; because it's not opinion based. It's just there. An npc is either a henchmen or expert hireling as well anyone that parties with you is a party member.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

The problem I have with this is that it uses different terminology for functionally identical characters. Ie Tycho and Ian in Fallout, from a mechanics perspective they are the same, but since one gets paid while the other doesn't, you're using different terms for them. Not terribly descriptive and as such fairly meaningless.

[Slowtrain]

At least, using D&D system which  is the terminlogy that started all this (and is based on actual (defintions); at least the terms are concise and it's not  a matter of opinion. That's why I prefer it; because it's not opinion based. It's just there. An npc is either a henchmen or expert hireling as well anyone that parties with you is a party member.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

The problem I have with this is that it uses different terminology for functionally identical characters. Ie Tycho and Ian in Fallout, from a mechanics perspective they are the same, but since one gets paid while the other doesn't, you're using different terms for them. Not terribly descriptive and as such fairly meaningless.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Also Ian only gets paid 50 bottlecaps. Is there a functional term for stupid? :D

[Plano Skywalker]

not sure how this fits into the current discussion but, back in my PNP days, a "party member" is someone who got a cut of the treasure at the end of the adventure. a "hireling" received a wage, regardless of the actual treasure.

 

and that is also how I think party-based cRPGs should do it...the PC (who is also the party leader) has a button that says "Divide Party Treasure"....everyone who is an actual member of the party gets their cut and some might actually leave and never be heard from again.

 

hence, one reason to have hirelings is that it is an interim solution given that some of your party members are off spending their cut and may not return.

 

anyway, I'm all about there being different designations for followers, especially in dialogue-heavy games...the ones with the big dialogues are full-blown party members and will always come back.....the ones who may not come back can also be fired at any time as they are non-essential to story progression.

 

anyway, that is what I would prefer to see....I like the trend in having essential party members but I don't want them all to be essential.

 

there should be a finite number of hireling slots (independent of party-member slots) and these slots would also be used for mounts and pack animals.

[Volourn]

"not sure how this fits into the current discussion but, back in my PNP days, a "party member" is someone who got a cut of the treasure at the end of the adventure. a "hireling" received a wage, regardless of the actual treasure."

 

Yup. That pretty much how it works.

[Morgoth]

Heh.  Go back and read from Jag's initial question. I answered and some bozoo went wacko on my butt and the topic spiraled from there. It was, and si fun!

 

Anyways, on Gothic 3: I am level 20, and am about to destroy the Montera orcs which means I'm just ahead of where I was when I had to restart the game because of the demo screw up. I'm not sure if I want to beat up those orcs yet. I mean go on to Gotha and deal with the evils there before dealing with Montera. Then, I'll go take out (or try to) those dragons near Cape Dun...

 

 

   

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm just heading to Montera. I already killed one of those Cape Dun dragons (currently Level 6 char) but I got him with luck (i.e. I pushed him into a corner where he got stuck so I could kill him easily). Though I'm still struggling with those three Ogres. I want to conclude that "Search the 3 crates for that grumpy Orc...Uruk?). I guess they must be somewhere there....

Anyway, thanks to the new patch, the henchman now are a little more useful. That Cynax (? I never remember those names correctly) took out a snapper on his own...respect respect I must say. :D

Edited December 26, 2006 by Morgoth

[Tigranes]

The 3 crates for the Orc is easy, you just follow the coastline from Cape Dun until you find some bandits with a campfire. You kill them, then take the crates.

 

Above the cliffs still, not below on the beach.

[Morgoth]

Oh that's why... Everytime the Ogres made potato mash out of me, the subtitle "Quest blabla failed" showed up, so I thought it must be hidden somewhere there.

Bandits are everywhere though. I just met a bunch who whined about "cowardly Goblins". Are those the ones?

Edited December 26, 2006 by Morgoth

[Volourn]

Those aren't bandits. Those are rebels. To find the bandits in question, head from Cape Dun towards the first town, and ona cliff above the beacj you should see the bandits in question.

[Tigranes]

They are just behind a big boulder and have a campfire. The crates are clearly visible on the map, and they also have a couple of weapon bags.

[mkreku]

A moderator on JoWood's official board translated a german post by one of the developers on Gothic's biggest fan site. I thought it was an interesting read. I love that he's honest enough to admit that they failed in a lot of aspects and are now working hard to redeem themselves.

 

http://forum.jowood.de/showthread.php?t=136609

[Morgoth]

They can redeem themselves by dropping the Gothic franchise once and for all and make something new.

[mkreku]

They can redeem themselves by dropping the Gothic franchise once and for all and make something new.

So they would somehow redeem themselves by not supporting the customers who bought Gothic 3..? You want them to not work on the next patch? Great logic.

[Morgoth]

They can redeem themselves by dropping the Gothic franchise once and for all and make something new.

So they would somehow redeem themselves by not supporting the customers who bought Gothic 3..? You want them to not work on the next patch? Great logic.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What's the point? Most people already played through it or (like myself) got bored after a few hours of gameplay. Damn how much I liked the first Chapter in G2.... Khorinis, tons of people to talk to and tons of quests. In G3, I run just from one mini-village to another and always must listen to the same boring "Leave me alone!" lines. Meh. Customer support huh? Some companies dedicate just for the post-support alone a larger team than whole Piranha bytes! I want them to use the time to make something new, not waste another half year for trying to fix a boring game.

Edited January 12, 2007 by Morgoth