I actually don't want to see the 2.6m goal's content

[Gecimen]

I'm sure some of you are die hard fans of the full party creation stuff but I simply don't want to see it make it to the game.

 

Why?

*First off I was hoping we will see as strange companions as PS:T but now the party is modifiable so we probably won't see something like Morte, since if he can be left out, there's no point adding items as Teeth to loot tables.

*I'm more into the story rather than the hack'n slash factor of cRPGs so I'd like to get my companions as involved as I can.

*Leaving out companions has no meaning for me but thinking of the fact that the possibility of creating a stronger party always stands there, disturbs me.

*Player housing where my companions rest will lose it's meaning if there will also be some randomized characters there.

*My PC will lose its uniqueness if I can have 6 PCs. E.g. which of my PCs will have romantic relationships with NPCs?

 

 

I don't know but maybe altering companion classes without changing their looks/characters would be possible?

[IndiraLightfoot]

I see where you're coming from, but I'd like to have that Adventurer Hall for my 3rd playthru or so. First, I will merrily take on board the companions of my choice and interact with them through the story choices I make.

[harhar!]

Coming from PS:T I have to agree with you. I would even go a step further and say, that I like to not be able to even define my mainchar! So that there are more possibilities to make stories for the developer. For example I don't see a way to make the PS:T story if you could completly change the PC around, it just wouldn't make sense at all. Hence I think: Don't sacrifice freedom in development for meaningless customization.

[Sensuki]

I think they're including the spirit thing from Lionheart.

 

Question: Feargus, anyone mentioned about featuring a "pet" that is really functions as your "live journal"?

Essentially you get a soul / conscience that follow you around that you can talk to, to have her (or him if you so choose) repeat what was last said by which npc, follow up on your quests and give hints as to where to head to next if needed, and participate in banter with you and your companions. She is however a non combatant, and doesn't take up a companion slot. Kinda like Morte form PST.

 

You don't have to use the custom-made NPCs if you don't want.

 

The Adventurer's Hall will serve other purposes than custom NPC creation.

 

I probably won't make my own NPCs, and I don't really care for the stretch goal either but other people might.

Edited October 8, 2012 by Sensuki

[C2B]

Coming from PS:T I have to agree with you. I would even go a step further and say, that I like to not be able to even define my mainchar! So that there are more possibilities to make stories for the developer. For example I don't see a way to make the PS:T story if you could completly change the PC around, it just wouldn't make sense at all. Hence I think: Don't sacrifice freedom in development for meaningless customization.

 

What?

 

What?

 

What is this thread?

 

What?

 

You're assuming a lot of x means less y, when this is obviously not the case. Those things aren't mutually exclusive and it opens story possibilities into itself. In the other thread someone mentioned story/game mechanics that could tie into them to give the player more freedom.

Edited October 8, 2012 by C2B

[Vargr]

Even without the 2.6m stretchgoal, there's no *need* to take on NPC companions. You can leave them out and play the game solo if you wish,

it's been stated, I believe.

 

If you want to play through with companions to banter with and provide story feedback etc, you can.

With the 2.6m goal, if you want to have custom followers, you can.

 

Just a simple case of "If you don't like it, don't use it." (I never like it when people use that term in response to anything I say, but it's true in this case.)

 

I probably won't use it myself, at least not for the first playthrough.

 

 

All a matter of preference.

[C2B]

Even without the 2.6m stretchgoal, there's no *need* to take on NPC companions. You can leave them out and play the game solo if you wish,

it's been stated, I believe.

 

Going solo can also be referenced in the narrative itself. Or maybe something happens to the companions you never pick up. Maybe you end up against them in some quests.

 

Just needs imagination.

[Piccolo]

Even without the 2.6m stretchgoal, there's no *need* to take on NPC companions. You can leave them out and play the game solo if you wish,

it's been stated, I believe.

 

If you want to play through with companions to banter with and provide story feedback etc, you can.

With the 2.6m goal, if you want to have custom followers, you can.

 

Just a simple case of "If you don't like it, don't use it." (I never like it when people use that term in response to anything I say, but it's true in this case.)

 

I probably won't use it myself, at least not for the first playthrough.

 

 

All a matter of preference.

This. OP is missing the point.

 

They've said right from the start that the game is being designed so that companions are completely optional, and players can choose to play with only one character if they want.

 

With that in mind, I fail to see how giving people the option to create their own party members changes anything.

[Loranc]

I don't see a problem with the player's hall, however.... having this as a 2.6 million stretch goal, something that is this 'high' on the amount of cash flow coming into this game, is a bit ridiculous. I would have expected something far more grander than a player's hall for a 2.6 million stretch goal, which is more than double the original goal. It's almost like they're asking people to not give them money after the 2.5 million goal. If they want to keep the cash flowing in a good way they should have added something that applied to a higher majority of their player base, instead of something that only makes a small fraction of people go 'yay'. I think they really hurt themselves with this goal, and would have preferred to see something that would add more to the game itself.

 

I hope they decide to add something more to that 2.6 million goal, or at least make the 2.7 million goal killer, because I'd really love to see this game get as much stuff as possible added to it. And having a stretch goal that doesn't cause enough people to go 'yay', is really going to hurt the amount that they get over all. Which means less content for the finished project due to a lousy stretch goal. Now I know not everyone agrees, but just ask yourself this. Were you more excited about the two stretch goals before it; crafting and enchanting, two new character classes. Cause if you were than that should defiantly tell you that the 2.6 million stretch goal was poorly thought out.

Edited October 8, 2012 by Loranc

[C2B]

Were you more excited about the two stretch goals before it; crafting and enchanting, two new character classes. Cause if you were than that should defiantly tell you that the 2.6 million stretch goal was poorly thought out.

 

I'm much more excited about the player hall than crafting and enchanting.

[Loranc]

I expect several people will be, but I honestly believe that the old school rpg lovers like myself look at something like this and shrug our shoulders, it doesn't bother us that it's being added but we could care less.

[Magnum Opus]

The only example listed in the OP where I feel there's any validity is the one where the "alternative party being more powerful disturbs him". That's ultimately personal preference, whereas the other points listed are by no means certain (how do optional party members preclude the existence of NPC-specific items, exactly?)

 

Unfortunately that's the point which, while the most valid, is also the most petty. There are always going to be choices that have to be made between powergaming your way through the adventure and doing what you feel is the most fun. Do you wear the gnomish magnetic clown armor even though it makes you look like an idjit? Or do you keep the cool-looking but not as effective black leather? Do you hop around the wilds of Morrowind like a kangaroo to max out your Jump skill, or do you realize that there's nowhere TO jump that you can't get to by other means and maintain the dignity of your character that you profess to value so much? It's all up to the player. Some people will loot absolutely EVERYTHING that isn't nailed down, run back to town to sell it when they get too full, and then have the gall to complain that "it's not fun, I need more inventory slots, weight limits are stupid, the game is broken".

 

Pro-tip: It's not the game that's broken under such circumstances. Gaming in general might be culpable in that for the last 30 years they've actually rewarded obsessive-compulsive behaviours in their audience -- not infrequently they've even demanded it in order to beat the game -- but ultimately it's up to the player to rein it in long enough to have fun. If OP values companion interaction more than squeezing the last drop of power and customizabilty out of their party members, OP will use the provided NPCs. We will trust that they will do what makes them happy, rather than insist that the developers FORCE it upon them, to the detriment of what everyone else wants.

[Jarmo]

Didn't PST allow you to leave Morte out anyway, or play solo?

I didn't try, but still found it hard to choose between companions.

 

Even without him you'd still find useless teeth and other useless loot.

It was kind of annoying to play as a wizard and find all these nice axes and stuff,

but not having anyone in the party who could use them.

 

No, I don't think it removes anything from the game if you can make your own team.

I wont, at least on the first playthrough, but it might be something to try on the third.

 

That's assuming the game will be anything like good anyway.

[C2B]

I expect several people will be, but I honestly believe that the old school rpg lovers like myself look at something like this and shrug our shoulders, it doesn't bother us that it's being added but we could care less.

 

No, they don't. Party creation is a decidely old-school and popular feature in said crowd.

 

That's naturally depending on what you consider old-school.

[Apatia]

I expect several people will be, but I honestly believe that the old school rpg lovers like myself look at something like this and shrug our shoulders, it doesn't bother us that it's being added but we could care less.

 

Then you're not that 'old school lover'. In the really old school rpgs you had to make the whole party yourself.

 

In any case, 2.6 mil stretch goal does not affect on the companions so I don't really care. I usually like companions with personalities etc but I do welcome the possibility to do my own party if I want to.

[DocDoomII]

i don't see the problem. They are not gonna remove companions to add the adventurer's hall. It's just optional.

And about the companions being trange or bizarre, in Planescape the setting was way too optimal for such unusual character since sigil si the center of the multiverse.

P:E is gonna be more traditional, in a sense, but I know that they we'll be able to give a unique feel to it.

[Lv99Wizard]

This is an excellent option which many people will really enjoy and will not impact those who don't use it. Not even in the slightest. All of the stated concerns are fiction.

[Vargr]

In any case, 2.6 mil stretch goal does not affect on the companions so I don't really care. I usually like companions with personalities etc but I do welcome the possibility to do my own party if I want to.

 

 

Seconded.

 

Especially if there's a companion of Quara-level of annoyance. If it's a companion with a class I'd like to have in my party, but the companion itself is annoying as all hell, I definitely welcome the ability to leave them broken and bloodied in a ditch somewhere and go and recruit a custom made follower

of the same class.

Edited October 8, 2012 by Vargr

[AlphaShard]

I feel the complete opposite the customization has great meaning and personal touch to the game. Having the main chat set in stone was one I the reasons I didn't play PST it was just too alien for me.

[harhar!]

Coming from PS:T I have to agree with you. I would even go a step further and say, that I like to not be able to even define my mainchar! So that there are more possibilities to make stories for the developer. For example I don't see a way to make the PS:T story if you could completly change the PC around, it just wouldn't make sense at all. Hence I think: Don't sacrifice freedom in development for meaningless customization.

 

What?

 

What?

 

What is this thread?

 

What?

 

You're assuming a lot of x means less y, when this is obviously not the case. Those things aren't mutually exclusive and it opens story possibilities into itself. In the other thread someone mentioned story/game mechanics that could tie into them to give the player more freedom.

 

What is not to understand? If the dev doesn't know what appearance/race/gender you choose he can't use it in the dialogues.

[Dermi]

What is not to understand? If the dev doesn't know what appearance/race/gender you choose he can't use it in the dialogues.

Ever heard of "variables"?

[Vargr]

Coming from PS:T I have to agree with you. I would even go a step further and say, that I like to not be able to even define my mainchar! So that there are more possibilities to make stories for the developer. For example I don't see a way to make the PS:T story if you could completly change the PC around, it just wouldn't make sense at all. Hence I think: Don't sacrifice freedom in development for meaningless customization.

 

What?

 

What?

 

What is this thread?

 

What?

 

You're assuming a lot of x means less y, when this is obviously not the case. Those things aren't mutually exclusive and it opens story possibilities into itself. In the other thread someone mentioned story/game mechanics that could tie into them to give the player more freedom.

 

What is not to understand? If the dev doesn't know what appearance/race/gender you choose he can't use it in the dialogues.

 

Hmm they can make different conversations trigger based on what race/gender/whatever you picked. It all doesn't have to be set in stone for it to

be reflected in dialogue.

[cyberarmy]

I'm sure some of you are die hard fans of the full party creation stuff but I simply don't want to see it make it to the game.

 

Why?

*First off I was hoping we will see as strange companions as PS:T but now the party is modifiable so we probably won't see something like Morte, since if he can be left out, there's no point adding items as Teeth to loot tables.

*I'm more into the story rather than the hack'n slash factor of cRPGs so I'd like to get my companions as involved as I can.

*Leaving out companions has no meaning for me but thinking of the fact that the possibility of creating a stronger party always stands there, disturbs me.

*Player housing where my companions rest will lose it's meaning if there will also be some randomized characters there.

*My PC will lose its uniqueness if I can have 6 PCs. E.g. which of my PCs will have romantic relationships with NPCs?

 

 

I don't know but maybe altering companion classes without changing their looks/characters would be possible?

 

You do know you dont have to use that feature right?

 

İts a giant option for replayability, i really find it hard to understand when someone is against more options...

[grotbag]

To the first point; MotB and NV both featured two non-humanoid party members with limited equipment options, a la Morte, and in both cases the game supplied them with new items/abilities to balance out their lack of normal equipment through interaction and quests rather than through standard loot (Morte, of course, had his insults too). There's no reason at all to make a link between full party creation and generic NPC party-members, just because of loot-tables.

[sesobebo]

*First off I was hoping we will see as strange companions as PS:T but now the party is modifiable so we probably won't see something like Morte, since if he can be left out, there's no point adding items as Teeth to loot tables.

*I'm more into the story rather than the hack'n slash factor of cRPGs so I'd like to get my companions as involved as I can.

*Leaving out companions has no meaning for me but thinking of the fact that the possibility of creating a stronger party always stands there, disturbs me.

*Player housing where my companions rest will lose it's meaning if there will also be some randomized characters there.

*My PC will lose its uniqueness if I can have 6 PCs. E.g. which of my PCs will have romantic relationships with NPCs?

 

that's some impressive logic bending You have there...

 

*i din't pick ignus. has his story suffered for it?

*if You want more story, pick compaions with story, and don't make Yourown at adventurer's hall.

*???

*i'd asume that people You don't want at Your house don't hang around Your house. Same goes for uninvited people.

*then don't have 6 PCs.

 

 

just a stab: have You perhaps confused Adventurer's Hall, where You'll be able to custom make mercenaries, with Player's House, where You'll be able to do whatever it is that You'll be able to do?