Here are some dilemas how hard must be finding and recruiting the companions in the game.

I think it must be defenitely hard, because they will have a great value in the world. I even think there must be great difficulties filling up our party, mostly we will be able to find and convince 4-5 companions the 6th must be mission impossible (this is for hard mode)

What do you think?

I definitely do not want it to be "o hai, why don't i just start following you and pretend we are the bestest friends eva". I also don't want it to be too hard, as I fear it may become distracting/tedious. Something like, complete a set of quests for each companion before they can join. Each companion would have quests catered to its class. So, if you want a barb to join your party, you have to help him/her kill bad guys, if you want thief you have to sneak/steal for his/her quests, etc.

I think there should be lots of recruitment options. You should be able to gain permanent allies but also be able to use mercenaries. It's fun when party is dynamic and some would join your party only for brief period of time. It would be nice to see that some members have agendas that they want to pursue. Like when party gets rich enough some might want to split gold and be on their way. If you say no they might become hostile. Also not all party members might get along so you should choose carefully who you recruit.

Defnitely not hard to find, have to search and scour the land for companions. I also don't want them falling into my lap.. other than perhaps the first one.. but even that one would be something that happens as part of the main story.. I want it to be basically like BG.. where you start out alone and through your "normal" travels, you come across people who want to join in your cause.. you might need to help them out in some way first, or reach a certain level of fame.. or whatever to "qualify" for them.. and yes, there should be ones "off the beaten track".. but not ALL of them.

Where's the "I want Obsidian to surprise me" option?

The main thing for me is to be careful with where you're placing a companion.

 

It's not a lot of fun if there's this great companion but they show up so late in the game you barely get to use them...

The main thing for me is to be careful with where you're placing a companion.

 

It's not a lot of fun if there's this great companion but they show up so late in the game you barely get to use them...

 

This. Both "time of discovery" and location must make sense for the character. Difficulty and such should be relevant around that.

 

Examples:

 

Yeslick in BG1. Unfortunately his story was never fleshed out as much as I liked and I was sad that he didn't appear in BG2, but finding him was like finding a little treasure deep in a prison held by enemies--he was captured for information, see.

 

Nordom in PS:T. OMG finding that bugger was annoying as hell because he's somewhere in a randomized combat maze! And yet, it totally made sense for his character. He was lost, literally.

 

Fall-from-Grace, proprietress of the Brothel for Slaking Intellectual Lusts, very easily found within her establishment. But she wouldn't join with you until you were... uh... I don't remember now. Finished certain quests or whatever.

 

There are lots of ways to make both the discovery and party-joining of companions interesting, sometimes difficult or not, and sensible for their backgrounds. I do hope and expect that Obsidian makes this work well--not too front-loaded but not too late that development would be a pain.

Grace joined you once you talked to all the prostitutes and I think also the cabinet, Luis. Honestly, as much as I loved PST (spoiler alert: I ****ing loved PST), I was never happy with the "get Grace to join" quest. I never really understood why The Nameless One wanted her in the party. I mean, I wanted her because she was one of the few recruitable characters in the game and like hell I'm gonna pass up on that. But to The Nameless One, she was just... a very strange lady who ran a very strange brothel. And with all the other party members having deep personal connections to TNO and/or being forced in to the party by outside forces, it seemed weird that TNO would pursue this... random character so heavily.

 

Now, I should note that hiding a companion at the ass-end of the game isn't necessarily terrible. I kind of liked Gorris' place in Fallout 2 because **** it, this game's getting a bit grey-haired, bring on the god damn deathclaws and ****.

Grace joined you once you talked to all the prostitutes and I think also the cabinet, Luis. Honestly, as much as I loved PST (spoiler alert: I ****ing loved PST), I was never happy with the "get Grace to join" quest. I never really understood why The Nameless One wanted her in the party. I mean, I wanted her because she was one of the few recruitable characters in the game and like hell I'm gonna pass up on that. But to The Nameless One, she was just... a very strange lady who ran a very strange brothel. And with all the other party members having deep personal connections to TNO and/or being forced in to the party by outside forces, it seemed weird that TNO would pursue this... random character so heavily.

 

Hm, now that you mention it, it did seem kinda awkward. "Wait, why are my dialogue options this?" Yeah, I remember that a bit more now. Well, on the plus side, her character was very interesting and classy. I still wish to god I could've chopped up the armoire for kindling.

 

Anyway, overall I'd rather the NPCs be a bit spread out but not too difficult to find, with both location and a join quest/conversation that makes sense, between the "piece of cake" and "sweat" options, really. Maybe make the quest/conversation more interesting/difficult than the actual location.

I like the thought of a slowly growing party. Baldur's Gate did a good job of it, in that they quickly gave you a bunch of people, but they weren't going to last, so you had to pick and choose and effectively you only got half of your Real Party fleshed out, if that.

 

And by not going to last, I mean they'd kill each other, so you have help to get you through the beginning, but you didn't just have the optimal party handed to you.

Edited October 18, 201213 yr by The Guilty Party

Yeslick in BG1. Unfortunately his story was never fleshed out as much as I liked and I was sad that he didn't appear in BG2, but finding him was like finding a little treasure deep in a prison held by enemies--he was captured for information, see.

 

Nordom in PS:T. OMG finding that bugger was annoying as hell because he's somewhere in a randomized combat maze! And yet, it totally made sense for his character. He was lost, literally.

I think BG1 and esspecially PS:T have very interesting approach, but I would like to see and something more calangable, a different approach.

The time when we hectically search for companions is most interesting than the time when we have gathered the whole party. In this row of thoughts I think, the 6st party member must be very hard to convince

I'm just gonna run with my experience from the Baldur's Gate series, so basically in BG1 companions were a dime a dozen, there were frankly WAY too many and a number of double ups (or triple ups) ensued with regards to classes at your disposal, frankly some of the NPCs were really weak and other then for quirkiness (some people REALLY like Alora...? go figure) there was absolutely no point in bringing them along, for example in Aloras case Imoen was always the better choice, hands down.

 

Then you have BG2, NPCs step up a notch or two, you get proper party interaction and romance, so many of these NPCs are much more fleshed out, but on the other hand there are some GLARINGLY obvious classes missing for you to add to your party (no monk, no sorcerer etc), so whilst character development was a huge jump in BG2, you end up feeling hamstrung sometimes in regards to your choice of character classes for NPCs.

 

Basically (as per my vote), I would like to work about as hard as you do in BG2 to get your conpanions (so in reality not THAT hard, but moreso then BG), but have better options. Looks like votes wise a lot of people agree...

None of the above. I don't mind starting alone, but neither would I mind starting off with a temporary companion of some sort. In D&D terms, d4 and d6 characters are fragile and prone to ending up in the Dead Book right quick, so a fighter or cleric as a temporary companion would be appreciated.

 

Additionally, I'd like to request that all of the companions be located within the first 25% of the game. This will give us the most time to come to know them via extensive interactions and to form our party as we see fit. If the companion clashes with our PC too much, it's best that we find this out early and locate a replacement or create one in the Hall of Adventurers as soon as possible.

 

We'll be leveling them up ourselves, right? If so, then it behooves us to incorporate them into our party ASAP in order to shape their skills and feats to our needs early on. If my PC is a healing-focused cleric, I don't need another healer and would want any potential cleric companions to specialize in something else. The best way to do this is to make sure that I encounter and recruit the other cleric early on in the campaign, so please let us do so.

Edited October 18, 201213 yr by Tsuga C

I like the aquisition of BG2 NPCs best. Any character who could be found easily and join easily was with purpose. Other characters had slightly more complicated introductions whether it be a simple rescure (Viconia & Cernd), a minor trek through a dungeon (Aerie & Mazzy), to a complete series of quests and/or an entire major dungeon (Edwin & Hear'Dalis). Overall, a great balance was achieved.

 

Overall, my greatest requirement is the time frame of discovery. It needs to be relatively early, even if party experience is irrelevant as in Dragon Age: Origins. Party composition is more than just maximizing experience and party balance. Your party's characters flesh out and frame many of the narratives within your own story. Being able to go through your entire adventure in the best of company, rather than only fractions of it is critical.

I think PS:T had it best, each of the characters had a location that made sense, regardless of when you found then in the game. Putting everyone in the first 25% or something to that effect would too easily result in Companion pokemon (gotta catch em all). If we are exploring a huge game world, it is unlikely we will be exploring all of it at once, and it is even more unlikely that you would find everyone interested in following you right away, and then travel to tons of new locations where no one is interested. I expect you will be collecting them for roughly the first 75% of the game if not more.

This poll is kind of irrelevant because of the Adventurer's Guild concept, which would allow players to hire generic companions without complex writing, dialogue or story involvement (potentially filling out their party, in a game which is likely to be completeable with the PC alone.)

 

Acquisition of real in-depth companions should vary between story concerns and free exploration and should be spread gradually out. I don't think any companion should be locked out until the endgame, for instance.

Edited October 18, 201213 yr by AGX-17

I expect you will be collecting them for roughly the first 75% of the game if not more.

 

I dread such a prospect as the companions I'm fondest of, given my luck, will be the ones last made accessable.

I expect you will be collecting them for roughly the first 75% of the game if not more.

 

I dread such a prospect as the companions I'm fondest of, given my luck, will be the ones last made accessable.

 

There is another possibility.

 

The problem with a "first 25%" and related content assessments is that it requires the world content to be linear. If the world is broad enough, we should be able to go down different questing paths to access companions in different order, like in BG2. Of course, this doesn't help in the first play-through unless you have some foreknowledge...

 

I suppose a related question is, what expected level would a companion have, and would companion levels scale with us when we first discover them, like in BG2? (I don't remember PS:T's implementation there. Maybe some other games do it differently.) Hmm.

I don't like it when you get companions way to late. If the character appears in the story earlier (like Magus from Chrono Trigger or Loghain), then that's fine. But when you get a character like Vhailor near the end of the game, it's kind of hard to feel connected to them because you don't get to hang out with them that long.. Heck, even in Arcanum where you get characters like Franklin Payne, Gorgoth, Arronax, Kree, and Kraka Tur VERY late in the game, you at least hear and learn about them throughout the game before encountering them.

Edited October 19, 201213 yr by Bill Gates' Son

The story says the PC will have a horrible experience at the beginning of the game then I guess we will start alone (any possible companion at this point probably will be a tutorial one and killed in the event). A idea for a first real companion will be someone who finds the PC soon after the event, maybe unconscious and/or barely alive.

Edited October 19, 201213 yr by gandalf.nho

I believe they said somewhere that all of your companions would have a vested interest in your quest (or something to that effect), so I don't know if convincing them to join you should really be a challenge. If they have the same goals as you convincing them to work with you doesn't seem like it would be a hard sell (in most instances, anyway). In games where the companions don't have a clear reason to join you, however, it does usually seem a bit odd for them to just drop everything and follow some stranger into death and danger.

I do like a gradual progression of going from soloing, to a duo or trio, then to eventually having a full party. I'm sure they come up with a good pace.

 

It would be neat if there are some hard to find or recruit companions, but not all of them. Some should easily join as part of the main storyline, enough to at least mostly fill the party.

The way they did it in PS:T was probably the best. But that game is so unlike any other party based RPG that it's hard to expect the same type of party growth.

 

TBH the way BG/BG2 worked is fine with me.

I'm just gonna run with my experience from the Baldur's Gate series, so basically in BG1 companions were a dime a dozen, there were frankly WAY too many and a number of double ups (or triple ups) ensued with regards to classes at your disposal, frankly some of the NPCs were really weak and other then for quirkiness (some people REALLY like Alora...? go figure) there was absolutely no point in bringing them along, for example in Aloras case Imoen was always the better choice, hands down.

 

Alora was a good thief to have for a good aligned party for when they were dual classing Imoen to mage, in which Alora's late arrival in the game actually works out.

 

Doubling up on charavter types in BG was good as ot gave choice but if you want depth like in later games then yeah you have to cut down.

I would like to see the PC start alone and have to work for true companions. I large selection of blow-ins would be good however their allegiance, loyalty, skill trustworthiness, suitability should be varied and they come and go as they please and not necessarily on your terms or without returning goods. The true companions should be more stable unless there are party clashes. You should really have to work for these. They should feel as a real personality and have a bond even if it is mercenary, idyllic or other. Some could be using you or infatuated for you. I see no problem with obtaining many ( however juggling the personalities and motivations should be a challenge and true companions need reasons whereas bow-ins would be more pliable but not as good or reliable.