Optional Full Party Creation, BG/IWD style

[Crooked Bee]

My favorite IE game is IWD so I really hope they include full party creation, even if optional. I don't see how else, given the limited number of recruitable companions, we could freely experiment with party builds, which is an important part of what CRPGs are about to me. An all wizard party anyone?

 

I can only hope Josh Sawyer agrees with me on that.

[Sarkus]

I don't see how they can satisfy both approaches, so that means choosing one or the other. In a single character RPG the companions help tell the story, in that it is written that way. In a party RPG the story is told outside of the companions. Both approaches work, of course, but I don't see how you can satisfy both approaches with one game.

 

I voted to stick with the devs intention.

[Tale]

One of the developers proposed an idea for an adventurer's guild. You start out with your regular PC, then you get coupons or something that let you go to the adventurer's guild and recruit from there. This would help resolve pacing and identifying the main character. The extra characters would just be custom built hirelings.

 

And I really liked the idea. The sad part is I'm not sure I would actually use it.

[Sargallath Abraxium]

...great idea, dependin' on the importance given ta certain joinables...I says, in cases o' custom party, let the player pick who theys wants as the "main character" an' jus' let the rest be "the help"...

 

 

...WHO LUVS YA, BABY!!...

[Piccolo]

I don't see how they can satisfy both approaches, so that means choosing one or the other. In a single character RPG the companions help tell the story, in that it is written that way. In a party RPG the story is told outside of the companions. Both approaches work, of course, but I don't see how you can satisfy both approaches with one game.

 

I voted to stick with the devs intention.

I don't see why they can't have both.

 

They've already stated several times now that the game will designed in a way that allows players to completely ignore the in-game companions and play by themselves if they want to. Creating your own party is effectively doing the same thing - ignoring the in-game companions.

[RosesandAshes]

I voted no, I'm currently playing Icewind Dale and I don't feel a connection to any of my party members.

I suppose if you just want to run around killing things, go for it, but I want to get more out of the story and interacting with interesting characters, and I can't do that with ones I've made myself.

[Undecaf]

No need for full party creation. SPC creation serves the story better, imo.

[Piccolo]

I voted no, I'm currently playing Icewind Dale and I don't feel a connection to any of my party members.

I suppose if you just want to run around killing things, go for it, but I want to get more out of the story and interacting with interesting characters, and I can't do that with ones I've made myself.

A lot of people come up with backstories for custom made characters... so they're not necessarily just generic husks to use in combat.

[draft1983]

hmm.. again. i voted no. As per the other thread. Personally i really love the developers companions in the old infinity games, especially baldurs gate 2. I feel they add so much to the whole game experience in generaland add a lot to the story and adds to immersion. Their random storys and squabbles during the game adds alot of heart and soul to the game and makes it feel their was a world and other adventurers before you came along, and really brings the game to life. Now if they keep these npcs, and it doesnt effect this by bringing int he option to create more than one of your own chars then fine, but i'm strongly against it if it will replace the companions. I actually liked iwd, but compared to bg2 it felt lifeless

[ogrezilla]

hmm.. again. i voted no. As per the other thread. Personally i really love the developers companions in the old infinity games, especially baldurs gate 2. I feel they add so much to the whole game experience in generaland add a lot to the story and adds to immersion. Their random storys and squabbles during the game adds alot of heart and soul to the game and makes it feel their was a world and other adventurers before you came along, and really brings the game to life. Now if they keep these npcs, and it doesnt effect this by bringing int he option to create more than one of your own chars then fine, but i'm strongly against it if it will replace the companions. I actually liked iwd, but compared to bg2 it felt lifeless

ya I don't think anyone is suggesting they remove the in game companions. That I would be against. But I really like the idea of being able to hire mercenaries during the game and just let you fully customize them then. That way you still have your single character to start the game so that the story can be properly started how the developers design it. But then once its established that you are a part of an adventuring party, you can add a few extra mercenaries that don't really have a story influence but at least it makes sense why they are there. Or you can ignore it and just use the in-game companions.

Edited September 28, 2012 by ogrezilla

[Shevek]

I honestly do not understand why people are against this. How is allowing others to create their own party hurting your experience? Even if you prefer prefab, how is giving others an option a bad thing?

 

Being able to craft my own party is one of the main reasons me and my friends replayed and continue to replay BG2. Frankly, without that option, I would play the game once, maybe twice, and that's it. Custom party creation increases replay value exponentially.

[Shadenuat]

Would make sense as a stretch-goal, although there does't seem anything particularly difficult in implementing such a feature at all. I myself finished Baldur's Gate trilogy with custom party at least once, I think.

[Merin]

I want this option.... but I'm not holding my breath at this point.

[ogrezilla]

It largely depends on how involved in the story the companions are I would think.

[Ashram]

Its one person's story sure...but whose to say you cant control some of who his friends/companions are? See my previous post about only allowing the player to create 4 of the 6 characters. This way the story can continue, but we can have the flexibility, if we so choose, to make more than one character at a time. The devs already said that multiplayer/co-op will take a lot of money. This is multi-character and there is nothing un-rpg or outlandish about it. Icewind Dale series was a ton of fun with this. I re-played that many a time. Custom Party option is a must and shouldn't be hard to implement.

Edited September 28, 2012 by Ashram

[Ieo]

It largely depends on how involved in the story the companions are I would think.

 

Yes, in PS:T, I can't imagine any room for an additional player-made character (besides which it's impossible given the narrative and everything) or playing without party members because that would strip a very substantial amount of content from the game. I doubt this is true of PE, however, so there would be room for self-made parties in the name of tactical replay value for single-player campaigns.

 

In BG, the only way to create a self-made party was to first create in MP mode and then move it into SP mode, right? That's a workaround, not an intended self-made party mode for SP. IWD was different, if I remember right, because you're required to build your party anyway. So the implementations were not equivalent in the least. But because this would still be played in SP mode, adding this feature wouldn't require concessions in the content that adding MP would--so I'd support this for replay value and for those folks who do prefer the tactical side (I remember that after I replayed BG2 so many times, I started making my own partial parties too). Basically the party interactions would be lost, but I suspect the vast majority of players will still play an NPC party campaign before jumping straight into the self-made anyway.

 

We know that MP won't be implemented for both technical and content reasons, but adding this doesn't seem like an awful stretch because it's technically SP.

[ogrezilla]

It largely depends on how involved in the story the companions are I would think.

 

Yes, in PS:T, I can't imagine any room for an additional player-made character (besides which it's impossible given the narrative and everything) or playing without party members because that would strip a very substantial amount of content from the game. I doubt this is true of PE, however, so there would be room for self-made parties in the name of tactical replay value for single-player campaigns.

 

In BG, the only way to create a self-made party was to first create in MP mode and then move it into SP mode, right? That's a workaround, not an intended self-made party mode for SP. IWD was different, if I remember right, because you're required to build your party anyway. So the implementations were not equivalent in the least. But because this would still be played in SP mode, adding this feature wouldn't require concessions in the content that adding MP would--so I'd support this for replay value and for those folks who do prefer the tactical side (I remember that after I replayed BG2 so many times, I started making my own partial parties too). Basically the party interactions would be lost, but I suspect the vast majority of players will still play an NPC party campaign before jumping straight into the self-made anyway.

 

We know that MP won't be implemented for both technical and content reasons, but adding this doesn't seem like an awful stretch because it's technically SP.

ya most likely it wouldn't be a big problem. But if the devs choose not to include it, I bet its because of it not fitting similar to PS:T and not because they just don't want to include it. I would like it to be there if possible.

[Bill Gates' Son]

I'm not seeing any cons in this option, other than slightly higher development time (and as a programmer, let me tell you, something like this wouldn't be hard to implement. Just a slight rewrite to the algorithm of the main character creator). Obsidian already said that all NPCs that can join your party are optional, so you can solo the game if you wish. Now would a 1 character solo be any different than 6 player created characters story-wise?

[Ink Blot]

Voted yes. I'd love to be able to create my own party for later runs when I've had all the available NPCs in my parties.

[SqueakyCat]

At first, I thought 'no'. After reading all your responses, however, I've changed my vote to 'yes'. I'm not sure I'd use it (maybe?), but if it's so easy to implement and others really enjoy it, why the heck not?

 

So, I hope you all get a conversation going with the developers or at least try to keep this thread on page one so they might take a second look. Good luck.

[ogrezilla]

I'm not seeing any cons in this option, other than slightly higher development time (and as a programmer, let me tell you, something like this wouldn't be hard to implement. Just a slight rewrite to the algorithm of the main character creator). Obsidian already said that all NPCs that can join your party are optional, so you can solo the game if you wish. Now would a 1 character solo be any different than 6 player created characters story-wise?

I apparently missed that bit. Then ya, for sure I agree. I already voted yes anyway.

[Shevek]

I would like to echo what Bill Gate's Son said. The devs have stated that companions are totally optionable. Over and over they have stated that one could through the game with the main character alone. If that is the case, then there is no justification to claim that one cannot have custom npcs for roleplaying reasons.

 

This game has the potential to be a truly great title. PE can be a game that BOTH has the deep dungeon hacking of older titles while ALSO delivering a compelling story. Why not give players the option to play the game as they wish? Why not take that dungeon hacking element and exponentially deepen it by allowing those that wish to to create that party as they see fit? This is a relatively cheap feature to implement. It would not detract from those that choose not to use it.

 

Honestly, putting this in is an easy win-win.

[Sylvius the Mad]

This is 1 person's story. There's no f reason to allow a party generation. You cannot explain it, it goes against OEs idea of NPCs being important. When do you decide who's the main character in the game? And if you change your mind in the middle the game?

So don't play it that way.

Adds replayability? HOW?

By letting us try different party constructions. An all Wizard party is often quite fun, but if we're limited to the pre-written party members then we probably can't ever do that.

[Merin]

I think a lot of "no" votes are confused. Not all, maybe not even most, but enough.

 

Those who want to be able to create their own party are NOT asking that companions be removed, or that the game's story be redesigned to have less story / companion interactions.

 

Like being able to play solo, this would be like playing solo (no companion story hooks, banter...) but having help in fights.

[Tychoxi]

I would probably never use it, but this is essentially the "solo" run-through, except that you get all the benefits of party-enabled meaningful tactical combat (ie. tactical positioning, formations, using diff. classes for diff. stuff, etc). Hence, since I don't think it could ever detract from the experience Obsidian wants nor that it would put a (meaningful) strain on development, and - maybe most importantly- that there's a lot of people who would enjoy it, I say "sure, put it in".

Edited September 28, 2012 by Tychoxi