Should there be player-generatable companions?

[jerf 2]

I couldn't find a topic addressing the question whether people want to have player-generatable companions, so I'm starting a new one.

 

Personally, I can't think of a reason how having mindless drones as companions can be justified by having control over thir stats/race/class.

Edited September 22, 2012 by jerf

[Nakia 632]

I would prefer companions integrated into the game with back stories and interaction but if other want to make their own companions let them. So I voted "I don;t care"

[Dianjabla 23]

*If* they include multi-player, then have it as an option to have multiple generated PCs under the one players control like they did with BG2. Tried it once, missed the companion NPCs never went back. But to each their own.

[Shades 80]

You need an option for both in the poll there, having one does not mean you cannot have the other.

 

I love companions with personalities who chat with each other and comment on things etc. But I also liked that in the BG games you could make extra companions by going with a multiplayer game (and by multiplayer I mean being able to play alone with characters you created or playing co-op, not the way a lot of multiplayer things seem to work these days). Especially in a game where you have a smaller number of companions, it means if you don't want to take one that covers a certain class, you could make one of your own to skip around with your main character. You could do games with a mix of the game NPCs and your own, or you could do a whole game with your own characters. I think it adds at least a little bit of replayability to the game and also means you can explore some different class and race combinations too.

Edited September 22, 2012 by Shades

[Piccolo 278]

While it can be fun creating a whole team sometimes, I generally prefer to concentrate on one character, with a lot of depth in terms of stats and customization. Also, it's nice having really interesting, well-designed NPCs as potential companions.

 

Having the option of both would be ideal.

[SirthOsiris 7]

Both. One for the story of the world, another for your own interest.

 

Who says having all player-generated has to be uninteresting? Some of us can really come up with stories for our ragtag groups of misfits adventurers.

[Monte Carlo 4,908]

The option to make your own party and play NPC free should be in there, purely for re-playability.

[Shevek 808]

I put this on the kickstarter page. I'll put it here:

 

This does not have to be approached from a purely narrative based standpoint. If it did, then why are they making the game soloable and the NPCs optional? If they make solo play an option then there is absolutely no excuse to exclude player made parties.

 

There are many ways to approach any given game. When I first played BG 1/2, I used the npcs. However, by my third playthrough, I grew bored Aerie's whining and Anomen's hair. I wanted my own crew of adventurers. I crafted their own backstories. I customized their own portraits. I named them. I even got them all their own soundsets and editted them a bit to match what I liked. They may not have spent half the adventure whining about not having wings or moaning about this or that but I feel them to be more than meatbags. I felt a sense of ownership over those characters that I did not feel over the NPCs I was handed.

 

Moreover, by being able to create them and choose their race, stats and class, I could totally change how I approached game battles. I had free reign in how I played the game in a way that I did not have if I was pigeonholed into using set NPCs that someone else had crafted for me. This opened things up tactically in ways that prefab NPCs do not allow.

 

Again, this is not an time consuming development option. Its easy. Its been done. Also, if included, no one would be forced to use it. Its pretty much win-win.

 

Edit:

 

I also posted this:

 

 

There is no need to question WHY one would like create a whole party. Just look at the history of cRPGs. Most classic cRPGs let you make the whole party, Wizardry, Gold Box, etc. Hell, just look at other IE games like the Icewind Dale games. And, for the last time, you could make the entire party in the Baldur's Gate games.

 

These let you do this because its fun. Hell, for you console gamers, you might remember good old Final Fantasy 1. Any beat it with 4 White Mages? 4 Fighters? 4 Monks? 2 Fighters and 2 Red Mages? Solo Red Mage? Red Mage/Fighter duo? This adds replay value and a certain level of strategic variance in how you play through the game.

 

In BG2, I like to duo my Half-Elven Ranger/Cleric with a Gnomish Fighter/Thief. None of the NPCs let me do that to my liking. I needed to be able to craft 2 of my own character to do that. Also, I sometimes wanted to craft every member and make them to what I felt would be the perfect party and then ratchet up the difficulty to test them out in the games toughest encounters (I tried many, many parties). Again, I could not have this level of replay value if I was stuck with just the prefab NPCs.

Edited September 22, 2012 by Shevek

[WDeranged 453]

If I had to choose I'd much prefer heavily crafted companions but if the game really can be played solo then I don't see the harm in being able to create a custom party.

[Kalavan 5]

Yes

 

But I think that this feature is most important in combat-oriented games like Icewind Dale or ToEE, from what we know of PE I could live without it

[Darkpriest 739]

No, sorry. What worked well in IWD series and NWN2: SoZ, where it was more of a dungeon crawl with story around a band of mercs, it will not work well for a story, where it is you (main char) affected by some big story element, and on your adventures you meet other people with interesting personalities, their own stories and agendas. Would you really think that giving you your own party work that well in Planescape for example? Or Baldur's Gate? I've played BG with my custom party (cause MP allowed for that), but I was missing out some great stories in the process...

Edited September 22, 2012 by Darkpriest

[Shevek 808]

Also, that poll is badly written. The No option assumes you cant have prefab NPCs by allowing other to choose to have characters they create themselves. That is what is called a push poll. You use biased language to push folks to vote a certain way.

[Krios 31]

Maybe I am too used to premade NPCs, maybe that is just me. We as players have our own minds, we can write maybe even better than the devs. But our creations will not be official NPCs. I guess to me NPCs are like strangers whom I want to meet. If they catch my interest I want to help them along in their piece of the world. If I created my own NPCs, then it is like me wanting to play God.

[Zephyr Falcon 13]

I voted for both mainly because of my unending love for Icewind Dale 2 - that game had only a player created party. And I loved it!

That said it shifted the feel of the game to a more tactical and strategic one. That's far from a bad thing. It proved how challenging the game is and how much proper party creation and ability use is.

On the other hand Obsidian is no making IWD3, they are going for a Baldurs Gate style game. And that is a desicion I support 100%. And I have the fullest confidence in OE delivering unique and deep characters as our companions.

 

But I worry that leaving the option of multiple character creation out of the game would be detremental to modding, sequels and "spin-offs".

[Aotrs Commander 183]

I'd like to have my cake and eat it too... The proper, fleshed out companions are a must (so you could play with just them+PC), but I think it'd be nice if, like BG/BG2/IWD etc you you had the option to could create more than one PC (or a whole party). (I played through BG 1 about 2.5 times, and I don't think I ever used the "proper" NPCs once.) I wouldn't imagine it'd be

particularly

difficult to implement, either. One assumes you'd have your "main character" who determines all the plot stuff, and then be able to just generate some extra bodies to fill out your ranks if you wanted to. (I mean, the secondary guys might be a little more flat in the roleplaying department, but that's sort of not the point, is it?)

 

A

bit

like in the last NWN2 expansion (something of zephyr? I can't for the unlife of me remember the name at the moment), except that instead of the more limited NPCs there, you'd have fully fleshed-out NPCs, and then you'd just mix and match your party with your characters and the NPCs maybe.

 

It's certainly a nice thought!

 

(Of course, it does lead to potential game balance problems if you wanted to run a party of just mages or something; but I sort of don't see that as a problem; if people wanted to do that and it made the game a breeze, I don't think it would really matter so much, since it's the player whose setting thier own difficulty.)

[Merin 338]

I voted for both because I don't think it would take too much to allow the player to fill all the slots themselves and just not recruit the NPCs (since you can choose to not recruit them anyway.) There will be balancing issues, sure, but if there are more recruitable companions than slots for companions this'll be an issue anyway.

 

Classic cRPG's always had you make your party of six, and their stories were good. Companions can be good for drawing the player into being involved in the game world, but that can be accomplished without companions.

 

Not only was Wasteland a classic example of this... but Wasteland 2 will be another example of this.

 

I'll be happy with any of the options, honestly, but there are PLENTY of games with pre-made companions... but other than Wasteland 2, what games have come out since SoZ that offered making your whole party?

 

Also, older thread on this -

 

 

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/60149-1-pc-plus-companions-or-create-multiple-characters-plus-companions/?do=findComment&comment=1189259

Edited September 22, 2012 by Merin

[Jaesun 306]

Since this game was specifically designed with companions that you will meet and are part of the story and setting, voted no.

 

If this project is financially successful to Obsidian, and they could do a IWD type spin-off where the player can roll all their own character? Hell yes.

[evdk 554]

Since this game was specifically designed with companions that you will meet and are part of the story and setting, voted no.

 

If this project is financially successful to Obsidian, and they could do a IWD type spin-off where the player can roll all their own character? Hell yes.

So was BG and it still gave you the opportunity to generate the entire party yourself.

[Merin 338]

Since this game was specifically designed with companions that you will meet and are part of the story and setting, voted no.

 

If this project is financially successful to Obsidian, and they could do a IWD type spin-off where the player can roll all their own character? Hell yes.

 

Well, there was this post in the other thread -

 

The one thing I can guarantee, is this game will have deep companions and that will be the default way you fill the party ranks. I worked on Storm of Zehir and I remember the #1 complaint about the title. Cohorts felt lifeless. Now, this doesn't mean I don't support the idea of being able to make your own party. What's important in an RPG to someone, is not always the same. That's what makes RPGs great.

 

For the record, I'm totally in favor of allowing players to create their own parties. It does create pacing issues early in the game though. In an ideal world (with a large budget), I would probably solve this with a recruitment system. In the most generic of terms, think Adventurer's Guild. Recruiting (creating) new party members would probably have a monetary cost associated with it depending on the level of the character recruited (created). Creating additional characters would happen during the course of your adventures, not all at once before the game begins.

 

This would solve quite a few issues including companion death, something I liked in BG2. I still remember Anomen loosing it and killing Aerie after listening to her whine for days on end. From a mechanics standpoint, it hurt. She was one of my healers and I liked her role in the group. If I could have hit the Adventurer's Guild and created a similar replacement, I would have.

 

Like any other feature, we are looking at everything closely and weighing the costs. That is the development process, and you never get all the features you want on any given title. With a smaller budget, the choice to include a feature is magnified greatly. Bottom line - the more funds we can raise, the more cool features we can get in.

 

My advice, if this is something you guys really want... make some noise.

[hideo kuze 101]

The poll's options are kind of misleading/limited.

 

Personally I only care for companions with personality. It's no fun when your adventuring with a bunch of dead bodies where nobody says a word on even the craziest situations.

(but for the record, I still enjoyed playing ToEE even though their companions are kind of flat)

 

However, knowing the cRPG audience, I would vote for having the option of creating any number of characters for my party.

So if I want to go 1 PC and 5 NPCs, that is possible.

But if I want to play with a 6 PCs party, that is still possible.

Just let the player decide.

[ddillon 72]

As Shevek says, this poll is a sham. You present a false choice between allowing players to create multiple adventurers or having BG2/DA:O style recruitable NPCs (see: false dilemma, false choice, either-or fallacy). You did create a "both" option after a request for such, but your bias in both the structure of the poll itself and your wording has already affected the results of the poll and rendered it practically worthless.

 

A better poll would be: "In addition to being able to choose from the planned recruitable NPCs, should players be allowed to custom design as many members of the party as desired?"

 

Either: "Yes, we should have that option."

 

Or: "I don't care."

 

Or: "No, any development time and resources used to support that feature, no matter how minimal, would be better spent on something else."

 

I vote that we should have the *option* - Shevek and others have already done a good job of explaining why here and in the other threads about this topic.

[nikolokolus 805]

Assuming it wouldn't be too hard to code into the game, I think it's fine to have both, but personally being able to create multiple characters isn't my cup of tea.

Edited September 22, 2012 by nikolokolus

[Superdeluxe 27]

No. There is a reason why IWD party system is not a favorite of many. We want our companions to have personalities and back story. Not 5 random characters

[molarBear 38]

NO.

imagine in PS:T, you were also given an option to create 1 companion. would it have had the depth and the story correlation of the other dev created companions? (morte, dak'kon, annah etc.) it wouldn't, it would only stick like a sore thumb.

[tilly 80]

Both!

 

Because no woman should ever have to put up with Anomen in party. ^-^ You can be replaced, my dear, oh yes easily ;3