Number of available companions

[Archon]

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.

 

This. Exactly this.

 

If companions "are highly reactive to the player's actions" they should even refuse to join the party depending on the PC's reputation. Or flee with all the gold in the middle of the night. Or turn against former allies in certain circonstances.

But it seems difficult with only 8 companions. Players could end with 3 refusing to join, 2 trying to kill them and a party limited to 4. ( which could offer great replayability ).

[Bill Gates' Son]

They should do what they did in Arcanum. Have a few well developed companions, while having a bunch of other companions that didn't have as much dialog.

 

6-7 seems nice if they are all well developed, but what if you didn't like any of your companions? I personally couldn't stand half the characters in NWN2 OC and DA: Origin, so I was forced to using "well developed" characters I didn't like at all.

[entrerix]

well, if they get rid of full voiceovers then that alone will get rid of the "i cant stand ____, he's so annoying i wish i didnt need him in my party because he is the only rogue companion who has lockpicking skills."

 

because honestly, reading the lines are never as annoying as hearing someone squeak them out in an annoying tone

[Astanas]

Seven isn't a bad number. It's exactly the amount of companions there were in Planescape Torment. If Project Eternity's companions are anywhere near as interesting and detailed as the ones in PS:T, I'll be more than happy with them.

Plus, there are actually eight companions, with the 2.2million stretch goal included... which kind of ruins the PS:T comparison.

[GhostofAnakin]

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...

 

I hope that the companions will need a bit of strategy when it comes to who you recruit, or who you keep in your party at a given time. Something as simple as one companion refusing to come along in the group if a certain other companion is in your group (perhaps they belong to warring religious factions).

 

That way the player has to put more thought into it than "oh hey, this one is an archer and this one is a mage, and I need both of those in my group". If they refuse to "party up" with each other, then the PC has to decide a]which to bring along and b]what the rest of the party make up needs to be like.

Edited September 20, 2012 by GhostofAnakin

[Astanas]

Also, on companions potentially leaving you or refusing to go with you... you know, there could be some reason why they don't do that. Kind of like how the companions of PS:T followed the player character because they were all being plagued by past torments (although that didn't stop some of the more chaotic ones to attack you under certain conditions). There could be some reason, some motivation why your group of heroes has to stick together, or is even forced to stick together. Instead of your companion leaving you after you've done some horrible deed, that companion will express his hatred and disgust for you every time you talk with him. That could actually be an even stronger form of reactive story telling than your companion simply leaving you.

Depends how it's done, though. DA2 did the same approach, but in that game it didn't make any sense. You could do the most amoral things and be a total **** to your companions and they would still help you on your quests and everything - for no apparent reason.

[Shevek]

I care more about the depth of characterization rather than the number of joinable characters. Mask of the Betrayer had very few joinable NPCs and I loved all of em.

 

By comparison, BG1 had a ton of npcs but only a handful mattered.

[molarBear]

planescape: torment did this right. it had 6 companions only but with immense detail and personalities (i exclude nordom, as it was a "special" companion. regardless, he was also very well written). gimme companions like these and i will sacrifice my firstborn to the ancient evil gods.

[Archon]

Having 1 companion per class is just speculation and we don't know much about classes yet but a solution would be to allow respec of companions.

 

Which implies that their personality would'nt be tied to a specific class even if they come with a "default" one.

 

So anyone could become that archer/mage/fighter we'd need and 8 would be sufficient.

[Bos_hybrid]

3 'good companions', 3 'evil companions' and 2' neutral companions'.

 

This gives each approach 5 companions or 6 man party. The only problem here I see is if the class of companion you want 'alignment' is different. But then isn't that a consequence based on your choices?

 

I get the desire for an all mage party/ all fighter party, that is why I think having the option to create party members should be a stretch goal.

[eimatshya]

Since they've said that all your companions will have some stake in whatever it is that your trying to do, I'm guessing they're initially going to be grouped with you out of necessity. As such, personality conflicts may be less important than "the mission", whatever that may be.

 

Anyway, I'm tempted to say that I would prefer a small number of well developed characters over a large number of less developed characters, 'cause the promise of well developed characters always sounds better than the promise of poorly developed ones. When I think about it, however, I realize that there's always the chance that I won't like any of the characters in the smaller cast, however deep they may be. This was sort of a problem I had in the Mass Effect games. All of my favorite companions were introduced in ME2, but then they were reduced to bit roles in ME3 so that they could, supposedly, develop a small group of characters more fully. However, the purportedly deeper character development in ME3 didn't end up appealling to me as much as the larger cast of ME2 because I didn't care all that much about the characters they chose to focus on. In contrast, the greater quantity of characters in ME2 meant that I was able to find a group of comanions that I actually liked, even if my relationship with them remained pretty shallow.

 

So, Obsidian focusing on a small group could be great if I like the characters or disappointing if I don't. Obsidian has a pretty good track record of creating characters that I enjoy, though, so I'm not too worried, and given the limited budget of the project, I think it's reasonable for them to focus on a smaller cast.

[Luckmann]

They should do what they did in Arcanum. Have a few well developed companions, while having a bunch of other companions that didn't have as much dialog.

I hated that more than anything. All the underdeveloped characters didn't feel like real characters, which just made you never take them, since the developed characters were much more interesting, even if you'd had them with you 20 times before.

 

planescape: torment did this right. it had 6 companions only but with immense detail and personalities (i exclude nordom, as it was a "special" companion. regardless, he was also very well written). gimme companions like these and i will sacrifice my firstborn to the ancient evil gods.

Why exclude Nordom? Nordom was just as engaging and developed as all the other characters. He wasn't even that much harder to get than, say, Ignus. Not to mention the number of people that misses Vhailor for several playthroughs, until someone told them to not walk straight into the portal in the prison. Edited September 21, 2012 by Luckmann

[Amused]

Has there been any indication about stats limiting the number of companions the PC can pick up? High charisma, party of 6, low charisma, party of... two?

[ohmygodsquad]

Has there been any indication about stats limiting the number of companions the PC can pick up? High charisma, party of 6, low charisma, party of... two?

 

Not yet, we don't even know what kind of stats we'll have to work with. We just know there's a max of 6 in the party, including the player character.

 

That said, I'm glad they're taking quality over quantity. I'd take the cast of Planescape over the army of Baldur's Gate NPCs anyday despite how much I like the latter.

Edited September 21, 2012 by ohmygodsquad

[TCJ]

Having multiple choices for companions would be ideal. BG2 offered a pretty good variety at 15 (I think) joinable NPCs, but even with that you were somewhat limited, thanks to the way the classes were done (like only one pure thief and only one pure mage). Also, if the game starts characters out at low levels (and I don't see why not), having the ability to change the focus of a character's class would be nice.... sort of like the option of making Shar-Teel a fighter/rogue and Imoen a rogue/mage back in BG1. Doing that gives options that you wouldn't have if the character were to be grounded in one class only. I haven't read anything on whether or not multi-classing is going to be possible, but I hope it is as it is.

[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...

 

I hope that the companions will need a bit of strategy when it comes to who you recruit, or who you keep in your party at a given time. Something as simple as one companion refusing to come along in the group if a certain other companion is in your group (perhaps they belong to warring religious factions).

 

That way the player has to put more thought into it than "oh hey, this one is an archer and this one is a mage, and I need both of those in my group". If they refuse to "party up" with each other, then the PC has to decide a]which to bring along and b]what the rest of the party make up needs to be like.

 

That's still something completly static. And why can't I force them into my group or manipulate them to work *together*. It's still something depending on your actions and I'm not saying it should have only (or at all) "good" consequences. It shouldn't. But, I really, really can't see the strategic part if the only thing you do is basically cut off a possible way how the their relationship can continue.

Edited September 21, 2012 by C2B

[alphyna]

There are 7 possible companions in PS:T.

Every time I play I have to toss a coin. It just hurts me to exclude anyone from the party — they are all too interesting. If there were 10+, I'd just go nuts.