Talking to people with your companions

[ogrezilla]

along the same topic, even though I don't like controlling exactly what companions who are already in the world say, if the game does allow us to have user created companions I would fully support having complete control over them. At that point you basically have multiple PCs

Edited September 28, 2012 by ogrezilla

[Sylvius the Mad]

It really depends on the game I guess. It works in Baldur's Gate, but it wouldn't work in PS:T.

True. PS:T wasn't written in a way that would have allowed it (though, again, according to Gaider neither was BG2, and it worked just fine).

 

But if Obsidian plans for such an option in advance, they can write the game such that it works.

Potato/Potato. Point just being that they should be considered integral parts of eachother. Seperating between them on principle would be a horrible decision.

Granted. I agree wholeheartedly.

Indeed; If there is an Aerie character, she shouldn't have the option of saying "Stop teasing me and just put it in!", or anything along those lines.

See, there I disagree. If Aerie says that, that tells us a lot about her personality. The shyness could be a facade, or perhaps she's more psychologically damaged by the loss of her wings than she thinks.

All options in conversations should be appropriate for that character. Sometimes these would be general things identical to what the PC could choose, sometimes it would be just a little bit different, and sometimes it just plain shouldn't have the same options.

I think that choice should be left to the player. Avoiding lines that are out-of-character for the speaker is already a huge part of conversation-gameplay. When choosing which line your PC will speak, you avoid those lines that don't suit him.

 

I see no reason to prevent the player from having the pre-generated party members from saying anything at all.

Clearly only the PC should have access to the widest range of options, since his or her character would be entirely undefined; murderous or noble, you'd have the full range of picks. Keldorn, Dak'kon or Kaelyn the Dove never would.

Unless they would, in which case they're now different characters.

 

I refuse to concede even that the companions are the same from one playthrough to the next. Perhaps in one playthrough Keldorn wouldn't utter menacing threats, but in another he might.

[Sylvius the Mad]

along the same topic, even though I don't like controlling exactly what companions who are already in the world say, if the game does allow us to have user created companions I would fully support having complete control over them. At that point you basically have multiple PCs

In a party-based game, I think we always have multiple PCs. Just some of them are pre-generated (like the PCs in tournament gaming you see at Gen-Con).

[Luckmann]

It was heavily underused because it would require a ****load of writing and scripting, and SoZ was a low budget expansion. Guess what else is low budget?

Your mother? :D

 

Seriously speaking though, I do not think that it would require "a ****load of writing and scripting". It would no doubt require a bit extra per conversation, multiplied by the number of companions, but that doesn't make it some kind of insurmountable goal. We're talking about a few extra lines per conversation - when relevant at all.

 

Besides, in addition to those few unique lines that the NPCs got, they also had the exact same generic lines that your PCs had. That wouldn't work with this type of game.

No it wouldn't. I've repeatedly lamented the under-usage of the SoZ-system in SoZ itself; obviously not everyone should have access to all the generic options. This is simple enough - make character a conversation statistic like any other. Certain conversation options would only be available from the main character, other conversation options only for specific characters, and yet others would be shared because they are simply so basic. It's as simple as that. Like putting a requirement for every conversation option (Strength limitations, Diplomacy, etc), it's just something to put before every selectable line of text when you're writing the conversation trees.

You're basically asking for a game that would work like SoZ but feel like Planescape Torment, but there's a a reason games like that don't exist.

That's like saying that "There's a reason it wasn't in IWD".

 

It's a mechanic that didn't exist.. until it did. If I could retcon reality, it would've been in IWD/2, too. And in Baldur's Gate/2, KotOR/2, PS:T, etc.

[Infinitron]

It would be far more than "an extra bit". We're talking potentially an exponentially larger amount of writing.

 

But what can I say? Don't hold your breath.

Edited September 28, 2012 by Infinitron

[ogrezilla]

I refuse to concede even that the companions are the same from one playthrough to the next. Perhaps in one playthrough Keldorn wouldn't utter menacing threats, but in another he might.

 

I think they should definitely be able to be influenced by what happens in the game. Different choices and events throughout the game could lead to the NPC companions having vastly different personalities.

 

along the same topic, even though I don't like controlling exactly what companions who are already in the world say, if the game does allow us to have user created companions I would fully support having complete control over them. At that point you basically have multiple PCs

In a party-based game, I think we always have multiple PCs. Just some of them are pre-generated (like the PCs in tournament gaming you see at Gen-Con).

and I disagree. We appear to be at an impasse.

[ogrezilla]

It would be far more than "an extra bit". We're talking potentially an exponentially larger amount of writing.

 

But what can I say? Don't hold your breath.

I think its doable. But probably not for a low budget game.

[Sylvius the Mad]

It would be far more than "an extra bit". We're talking potentially an exponentially larger amount of writing.

 

But what can I say? Don't hold your breath.

That's why I like my solution, which requires no extra writing at all. Just let us initiate conversation with any party member and use his stats to deternine success or failure. Everything else stays the same.

[Pixelperfekt]

I really liked that a lot too. Made me pause what I was doing just to listen to them. I got the biggest kick out of Oghren.

I suppose it would be way too much to expect the main character to actually have voice, like in DA2.

 

I was so happy to see him again in the expansion! That´s the kind of feeling I want to have for the characters in this game.

It doesn't really matter to me, if it´s handled well it works just fine with the character being voiceless. Giving him a voice seems unnecasery when the cost of doing that can go to something else in the game.

[Luckmann]

I really liked that a lot too. Made me pause what I was doing just to listen to them. I got the biggest kick out of Oghren.

I suppose it would be way too much to expect the main character to actually have voice, like in DA2.

 

I was so happy to see him again in the expansion! That´s the kind of feeling I want to have for the characters in this game.

It doesn't really matter to me, if it´s handled well it works just fine with the character being voiceless. Giving him a voice seems unnecasery when the cost of doing that can go to something else in the game.

I loved Oghren, but in Awakening, his character was basically reduced to fart-jokes and retardation. I have no idea who wrote him in Awakening, but it was clearly not the same person that wrote him in Origins.

[WDeranged]

I'd go for interjections versus having to independently select a character and use a talk command, it's better for conversation flow and you're less likely to miss out on something cool, it's pretty much the PS:T method

[Pixelperfekt]

I really liked that a lot too. Made me pause what I was doing just to listen to them. I got the biggest kick out of Oghren.

I suppose it would be way too much to expect the main character to actually have voice, like in DA2.

 

I was so happy to see him again in the expansion! That´s the kind of feeling I want to have for the characters in this game.

It doesn't really matter to me, if it´s handled well it works just fine with the character being voiceless. Giving him a voice seems unnecasery when the cost of doing that can go to something else in the game.

I loved Oghren, but in Awakening, his character was basically reduced to fart-jokes and retardation. I have no idea who wrote him in Awakening, but it was clearly not the same person that wrote him in Origins.

 

I know what you mean, the farting and vulgarity is only part of his charm, hehe. He was a great personality in the maingame. Still good to see him. Would love to have a bunch of followers in Infinitiy that have a hard time getting along, both in a serious and funny way.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I'd go for interjections versus having to independently select a character and use a talk command, it's better for conversation flow and you're less likely to miss out on something cool, it's pretty much the PS:T method

But you'll miss out on whole conversations if your PC isn't the sort to talk to that guy. But if you have a companion who would, and you can have companions act as party spokesperson, then that content isn't missed.

[Pixelperfekt]

I'd go for interjections versus having to independently select a character and use a talk command, it's better for conversation flow and you're less likely to miss out on something cool, it's pretty much the PS:T method

But you'll miss out on whole conversations if your PC isn't the sort to talk to that guy. But if you have a companion who would, and you can have companions act as party spokesperson, then that content isn't missed.

That´s a great idea, having to figure out which character is best suited to talk to the NPC. If made well it could be very interesting!