"Companions are never forced on the player. Players can explore the entire world and its story on their own if they so choose."

[DRevan]

How's that even supposed to work? I'm 100% sure that in most combat situations you will need a party to help you.

I don't like this middle way approach in RPGs. There should be a more definitive approach; You either need a party or you don't.

That kind of stuff ****ed-up New Vegas' stealth gameplay(as having companions with you rendered stealth play impossible).

 

That's my opinion, anyway.

[evdk]

You could solo BGs if you were cheesy enough. I believe there is a quote from Josh floating around somewhere, in which he confirms the possibility to finish the game just with your MC alone. It probably will be somewhat difficult though.

[Terror K]

To be honest, I've yet to see a game built around a party that claims you can realistically solo actually pull it off to any decent degree. Not without you having to make sure you're at least five levels above all your enemies anyway.

[Elerond]

They said that they have desinged companions so that they will support you on your way and that they are vital part of the game. But thay also give you change to try go game without them, which is probably very hard. You could try same thing in IE games, nobody didn't make you take any companions with you in BG/BG2/IWD/IWD2, nearly always you did as they make game more compeling, fun and easier to play. But trying game through with only with one character was nice challenge.

[qloher]

I like this approach, it worked beautifully for me in Fallout 2. In 90% of walkthroughs I had maxed charisma and a party of five companions, but there was that one time I did a solo run and it also worked just fine. Arcanum is another example of this.

When a game tells you that you MUST have at least 5 people with you or that you MUST be a lonely adventurer, it kinda breaks the immersion by throwing game's mechanics in your face. It's not terrible, but it's there. Having no such restrictions adds to believability.

[septembervirgin]

Maybe it will be structured so that one might send other people out to do some or all of the combat adventuring, should one wish to go that route?

 

I dunno, it's their call.

[Elerond]

 

When a game tells you that you MUST have at least 5 people with you or that you MUST be a lonely adventurer, it kinda breaks the immersion by throwing game's mechanics in your face. It's not terrible, but it's there. Having no such restrictions adds to believability.

I don't think that is what they meant. I think that you can have 0-5 companions with you and in end it depend on your decision how many companions you have following you.

[aVENGER]

It worked just fine for Fallout 1&2. Although you could recruit (multiple) companions in those games, it was possible to finish them solo as well.

 

Also, as others have noted, it is entirely possible to solo the Infinity Engine games. It might even be easier since you reach higher levels more quickly due to not having to share XP with other party members.

[qloher]

I don't think that is what they meant. I think that you can have 0-5 companions with you and in end it depend on your decision how many companions you have following you.

I know. And I'm happy about it.

Guess we had a misunderstanding here.

[Clammo]

This works fine for me. Especially the part about not forcing companions on you, which is a particular bugbear of mine. Nothing worse than being stuck with a companion who bugs the hell out of you. Sounds to me like it'll work like BG did, as evdk intimated, where you could choose to solo but it'd be cheesy as hell.

[aliksy]

Maybe it will be structured so that one might send other people out to do some or all of the combat adventuring, should one wish to go that route?

 

I dunno, it's their call.

 

You may have stumbled onto a great idea. Some crpgs have a full party form, but they just sit around when not with you. It'd be cool if you could ask them to do stuff on their own, and that had results.

 

Hell, maybe if you're really bored with combat you can send your fighty people in to fight, have that resolved with some dice rolls, and you could go play the talky bits.

[Audiocide]

When a game tells you that you MUST have at least 5 people with you or that you MUST be a lonely adventurer, it kinda breaks the immersion by throwing game's mechanics in your face. It's not terrible, but it's there. Having no such restrictions adds to believability.

 

Exactly. You could choose to play a leader or a loner. I don't see why choice is a problem for so many people.

[Kaldurenik]

I like this. Its a choice... Do you bring companions or do you run it solo or with less companions making it harder?

[Paul D]

Generally my PC is a mage, and, being squishy, appreciate having a few meat shields around at least until I've got enough firepower to last more than 10 seconds

[Baudolino05]

You could solo BGs if you were cheesy enough. I believe there is a quote from Josh floating around somewhere, in which he confirms the possibility to finish the game just with your MC alone. It probably will be somewhat difficult though.

 

You can solo-play BG and IWD just because aD&D is a awfully umbalanced ruleset, where having 3 more levels is almost better than having 3 more companions. I hope PE doesn't follow the same road...

 

I like this approach, it worked beautifully for me in Fallout 2. In 90% of walkthroughs I had maxed charisma and a party of five companions, but there was that one time I did a solo run and it also worked just fine. Arcanum is another example of this.

When a game tells you that you MUST have at least 5 people with you or that you MUST be a lonely adventurer, it kinda breaks the immersion by throwing game's mechanics in your face. It's not terrible, but it's there. Having no such restrictions adds to believability.

 

Fallout and Arcanum belong to a different kind of RPG. They are designed for being played with a single character. Companions are a non essential part of their gameplay. PE is a party-based RPG, instead.

Edited September 18, 2012 by Baudolino05

[Aoha]

I played BG2, IWD2, Planescape, and DA2 with solo characters. It was doable in old IE games because of bonus XP you would get with solo character. Early to mid game was hard but late game your char becomes godlike, in DA 2 I had to use mod which lowered cooldowns by certain% to pull it off.

 

I am glad that they thought of this since this can be both fun and challenging once you finish the game normally with full party.

[kirottu]

They said that they have desinged companions so that they will support you on your way and that they are vital part of the game. But thay also give you change to try go game without them, which is probably very hard. You could try same thing in IE games, nobody didn't make you take any companions with you in BG/BG2/IWD/IWD2, nearly always you did as they make game more compeling, fun and easier to play. But trying game through with only with one character was nice challenge.

 

Imoen in BG2 was forced on you.

[aVENGER]

Imoen in BG2 was forced on you.

 

While she does join your party immediately after the introductory cutscene, you can dismiss her with just two clicks. She doesn't have to stay in the party in order for the game to progress.

 

This is different from truly forced companions that were present in NWN2, where you had to take someone along in order to finish a certain (often plot critical) quest.

[kirottu]

Imoen in BG2 was forced on you.

 

While she does join your party immediately after the introductory cutscene, you can dismiss her with just two clicks. She doesn't have to stay in the party in order for the game to progress.

 

That's not how I remember it. She even had some weird magic belt or something that made killing her impossible, before she was kidnapped by Irenicus.

 

I might be wrong. It's been years since I last played BG2.

Edited September 18, 2012 by kirottu

[Luckmann]

Imoen in BG2 was forced on you.

 

While she does join your party immediately after the introductory cutscene, you can dismiss her with just two clicks. She doesn't have to stay in the party in order for the game to progress.

 

That's not how I remember it. She even had some weird magic belt or something that made killing her impossible, before she was kidnapped by Irenicus.

 

I might be wrong. It's been years since I last played BG2.

You can't kill her in the starting dungeon, that is correct, but you can dismiss her, and you can kill her immediately efter rescuing her.

 

I consider BG2 rather badly written, myself. It was mechanically superior to BG1, but story-wise, it wasn't very good. Everything I dislike about modern RPGs started with Baldur's Gate 2. It just wasn't as bad, yet, and I still consider Baldur's Gate 2 very, very good.

 

 

You could solo BGs if you were cheesy enough. I believe there is a quote from Josh floating around somewhere, in which he confirms the possibility to finish the game just with your MC alone. It probably will be somewhat difficult though.

If you cheese enough, at least Baldur's Gate 2 is very easy to solo. It does require that you abuse the game mechanics, though. Edited September 18, 2012 by Luckmann

[Badprenup]

There are lots of games that give you the option to party, but still being able to solo the game with relative ease. The original Final Fantasy, Dragon Quest 2, 3, and maybe the newer ones in that series all gave you the option of making a party or just a single character. The game is just hard unless you want to spend the time leveling up to stay above your enemies. And that makes perfect sense. If you can take on an enemy with 5 people, you should be able to do it with one, provided you have done enough training to have the strength of 5 people.

[Zombra]

Don't get mad ... but it would be okay with me if some of the combat encounters scaled based on your party size. *runs away*

[Volourn]

"You can solo-play BG and IWD just because aD&D is a awfully umbalanced ruleset, where having 3 more levels is almost better than having 3 more companions."

 

This simply not true.

[Jarmo]

I played BG2, IWD2, Planescape, and DA2 with solo characters. It was doable in old IE games because of bonus XP you would get with solo character. Early to mid game was hard but late game your char becomes godlike

 

Was going to mention this. Temple of e evil as well (until you hit the level cap, or used co8 to remove it).

Standard AD&D rules, it's almost always easier the fewer characters you have, with solo character getting 6x experience.

IWD1, you could get about 3 levels just by doing the noncombat town quests.

 

There's also the factor of dividing loot. When you don't have to get 6 pairs, you can get hella good equipment right away.

And then you're at full plate by level 3 and at +2 magic equipment by level 5.

Edited September 19, 2012 by Jarmo

[aluminiumtrioxid]

If you could gain passive bonuses or certain abilities when your party slots are not filled (even better if you get different bonuses if it's simply an open slot, or if said companion just doesn't tag along - possibly further modified by their disposition towards you).

Or you could send them adventuring on their own (doing so would save you time, when it's important in a quest), but then only the dialog options matching said companions' general disposition remain open. (And you lose their passive bonus.)

Edited September 19, 2012 by aluminiumtrioxid