Number of available companions

[Mathusss]

Hi, first of all I would like to say that I am very anxious for this project, like all the others around here.

 

I´m fine with all the goals Obsidian has set, but one thing, as title hints, worries me. Even with the stretched goals, I counted only 7 companions? Does that mean that only 7 companions would be available in the game or is it the number of companions one would have in party at the same time? While there is no need for 20+ characters like in BG1 (even though it would be great, if the quantity doesn´t cross with quality), there should be at least 10+ like in BG2. Even with 10+, there were problems in BG2 to create one evil party.

 

Party members had conflicts between each other, or were enemies, like you could never have Minsc and Edwin in the party at the same time, because they would kill each other. Same with Xzar/Montaron with Khalid/Jaheira. There were characters which didn´t travel with you, because of your reputation. You had to choose your way and hire characters which had the same point of view. It adds to "replayability"and fun.

 

Also it would be great if you have some kind of status with party members. Something like in Neverwinter Nights 2.

[C2B]

I want interesting companions, not archetypes of good/evil whatever. And even if the companions don't like each other, it should still be possible to get them together in one group depending on your actions. Or get them to murder each other too of course. Or help one of them to murder the other. Or...

Edited September 20, 2012 by C2B

[Elerond]

What we know is that you can have 0-5 companions with you when you make your journey. Now Obsidian has promised to make 6 companions, and if projects hits 1.8 million then they will make 7 companions and if project hit 2.2 million mark, they will make 8 companions. More may come if project gets more funds.

Edited September 20, 2012 by Elerond

[Ieo]

Planescape: Torment had 7 joinable NPCs of tremendous depth (and non-party NPCs with great personality). Since I'm praying with all my tiny geeky might that PE will have that kind of content, 7 total with the Kickstarter stretch goals would be fine with me.

[Entropious]

I guess it all depends upon:

- the number of factions present, their relevance within the game,

- the number of races,

- what, if any, type of "morality meter" will be introduced,

- what "climate" the game will have, that is, shall it be a thriller, a high fantasy product, or something more surreal and quirky, thus opening up so many options,

- and, last but not least, the number of classes; we can be certain that the number of possible companions will at the very least equal those,

Edited September 20, 2012 by Entropious

[Farudan]

It's 8 companions when it reaches 2,2 million. I think that's enough to have some variety. From a story perspective I'd rather have fewer companions with deep background stories and consequences over the course of the game. Like Shale, Allister or Morrigan in DA:O. But DA:O also had some characters that didn't live up to the benchmark of theese three characters. So I'd spend more time for less characters than having a bunch of people with nothing to say.

 

Of course, from a min-max point of view it could be better to have more different options of classes, subclasses and races for your party.

Edited September 20, 2012 by Farudan

[Playgu]

Rather 7 interesting, well written companions than 20 one-dimensional companions.

 

I like it when companions are very different from the playable character. Having unique appearance (Deekin, Morte) or set of skills that the player can not obtain on his own character.

[Entropious]

Exactly, we do not want the repetition of Baldur's Gate: a whole set of wasted potential; so many characters who couldn't be carried over, and therefore deepened, into the next game.

[LordCrash]

It would be great if they would give Minsk (and Boo) a cameo in PE. Immo one of the best video game characters ever created. And if that's not possible please hire Jim Cummings at least for some voiceovers.

[Peter]

Personally I would prefer characters with i can interact more than more characters to interact with. I vote for quality over quantity.

[Shaewaros]

I'd like to see at least 15 NPCs since there has to be variety in the party setup. Even in BG2, where there were 17 joinable NPCs, I've sometimes felt restricted, especially by the lack of competent thiefs. If there is going to be under 10 joinable NPCs I'm going to be disappointed.

[The Sharmat]

They also mentioned something about the 6 man party not precluding "temporary companions". Guest party members for certain quests? That could add some diversity.

[Carmelle]

Like Shale, Allister or Morrigan in DA:O.

 

I think this is pretty key. It had been a long time, before that game, since I was actually interested in companions in a game. I loved their personalities, history, completing their arcs, etc...

 

If we only have 8 companions, but they're of that calibur? I'm all for it! And that's what it sounds like they're going for anyways

[Luckmann]

I considered the number of companions in Baldur's Gate 2 to always be woefully inadequate. There was practically no manoeuvrability when it came to how you wanted your party to be. Very little options no matter what way you did things - and you could just completely forget about doing any kind of themed party. There weren't enough companions for a good good party, or an evil party, or a neutral party, or even a racial party. The last could be done, but it meant skipping content (no romances with non-elves).

 

The number of companions is one of my absolutely biggest fears for Project Eternity. Any good RPG, especially one with such (relatively speaking) big parties, should have an ample number of possible companions.

 

Exactly, we do not want the repetition of Baldur's Gate: a whole set of wasted potential; so many characters who couldn't be carried over, and therefore deepened, into the next game.

The wasted potential was in Baldur's Gate 2, not in Baldur's Gate. All of the characters could've been carried over - they just weren't.

 

My poor Xan and Kivan, Eldoth and Garrick.

 

[...]

- and, last but not least, the number of classes; we can be certain that the number of possible companions will at the very least equal those.

And that worries me too. Characters should be characters in their own right. Not a checklist. Edited September 20, 2012 by Luckmann

[Mathusss]

I agree, that rather fewer characters with deep personality, than plenty of flat characters. But that´s what BG2 improved over BG1. 7 or 8 companions are still half of what we had in BG2. I may be mistaken and the number of companions would be enough to coop with game principles, but it is for sure that all the characters would be forced to you and it wouldn´t be like finding and hiring someone during some optional traveling far away from the center of the plot. But it also depends on how large the game/game world is going to be.

 

I think that at least 2-3 characters more would add much to the mentioned replayability.

[Oerwinde]

To the comment about it being hard to have an all evil party, evil characters don't really attract a lot of trusted companions. It would be nice to have hirelings and such that could aid in evil party makeup, as that would make more sense.

[Ieo]

I agree, that rather fewer characters with deep personality, than plenty of flat characters. But that´s what BG2 improved over BG1. 7 or 8 companions are still half of what we had in BG2. I may be mistaken and the number of companions would be enough to coop with game principles, but it is for sure that all the characters would be forced to you and it wouldn´t be like finding and hiring someone during some optional traveling far away from the center of the plot. But it also depends on how large the game/game world is going to be.

 

I think that at least 2-3 characters more would add much to the mentioned replayability.

 

You mention only BG2 (and BG1). Have you played PS:T? It is night and day.

[dlux]

Edited September 20, 2012 by dlux

[Oerwinde]

I agree, that rather fewer characters with deep personality, than plenty of flat characters. But that´s what BG2 improved over BG1. 7 or 8 companions are still half of what we had in BG2. I may be mistaken and the number of companions would be enough to coop with game principles, but it is for sure that all the characters would be forced to you and it wouldn´t be like finding and hiring someone during some optional traveling far away from the center of the plot. But it also depends on how large the game/game world is going to be.

 

I think that at least 2-3 characters more would add much to the mentioned replayability.

 

You mention only BG2 (and BG1). Have you played PS:T? It is night and day.

 

One of my fondest moments in PS:T was spending half an hour or more doing the Unbroken Circle stuff with Dak'kon. One character, one topic, half an hour. And having high wisdom and breaking and reforging his faith was extremely satisfying.

[Sylvius the Mad]

 

Party members had conflicts between each other, or were enemies, like you could never have Minsc and Edwin in the party at the same time, because they would kill each other. Same with Xzar/Montaron with Khalid/Jaheira.

Kivan and Viconia would also eventually come to blows.

 

Though it was possible to have both Edwin and Minsc in the party long-term. If you didn't speak to Edwin in Nashkel until after you'd rescued Dynaheir, he would ask to join so he could "keep an eye on her."

 

On-topic, I'm hoping for several more companions than we can use at once. Otherwise we'd be badly limited in terms of our overall party design. Unless, of course, we can make more than one PC to start the game.

[Metabot]

It would be great if they would give Minsk (and Boo) a cameo in PE. Immo one of the best video game characters ever created. And if that's not possible please hire Jim Cummings at least for some voiceovers.

 

Why would they do that? Minsc has nothing whatever to do with this and he's one of the most annoying assclowns in any game ever.

[Mathusss]

You mention only BG2 (and BG1). Have you played PS:T? It is night and day.

 

Well, I have to admit that I have never played PS:T. I will leave now...

 

 

I´m going to play it someday(waiting for the news about possible enhanced edition). But the point is, they are making it more BG/IWD than PS:T. At least from what I´ve read.

[metiman]

Minsc was annoying. More so than most BG2 characters he seemed to have been written for a preteen audience. A 7 year old might find him endlessly entertaining. A 20 yr old is more likely to just find him annoying and ridiculous. What was it with Bioware1 and their need to have intentionally annoying characters. Jaheira was also extremely annoying. Imoen also to a lesser extent. Why create characters that most people are just going to want to kill off immediately?

 

As for the number of NPCs I think 7 fully written characters would be fine, but I'd also like to see the ability to roll your own characters. I dont think it would be particularly expensive to add that feature. It would add way more replayability than adding an extra fully written NPC or two. Another possibility is to add a couple of minimally written characters. They would have only very limited back stories and dialogue and would just be there as a slight improvement over rolling your own. I know a lot of people hate DLC, but charging $5 for an extra playable character after the game has been released wouldn't be a bad way to go.

[Kilroy_Was_Here]

What worries me about the companions is that they are all tied to a tier that also includes a new race and class. To me that means one token companion per game race. It's directly stated flat out that the new companion(s) will be of whatever mystery class is part of that tier.

 

The personality of the limited number of DA companions aside you had: one warrior, one offensive mage, one healing mage, one melee rogue and one ranged rogue (not counting Shale or the dog because they don't have standard character classes). In DA2 they spiced it up with two warriors, not counting your sibling (one two handed and one sword & shield). So if I didn't like, say, the melee rogue the game offered I either had to: do without, be one myself, or make the other rogue into a poorer substitute.

 

Even in BG2 there was enough variety that you were never limited to only one choice for a given class. I'm hoping that won't be the case here either, but what I see right now says otherwise.

[Tale]

Planescape had one rogue, period. I'm getting the impression that we're going to get a more personal party instead of just picking up everyone on the road that happens to have their own dagger and isn't trying to stick it in us.

 

Maybe it'll be a challenge to make sure those characters aren't annoying bleeps. While I do prefer the idea of having variety, I have been delighted by games without it in the past. And further, they may be doing something to mix up party composition needs.

 

I don't really know. I'm conflicted. As I said, I prefer having variety. I'd like to be able to do both a full party jerk run and a full party heart-of-gold run. But the need to have the companions well fleshed out and recognizing their limited means tempers that for me.