party members in PE

[Sacred_Path]

So from what I gathered there will be fully fleshed-out companions, and chars from the Adventurers' Guild that will basically just be hired goons. How are these supposed to blend together? Personally, i don't think they will mesh very well.

[Sensuki]

Did you ever play Baldur's Gate 1 or 2 using the Multiplayer protocol instead of single player?

[JFSOCC]

Did you ever play Baldur's Gate 1 or 2 using the Multiplayer protocol instead of single player?

no. Enlighten me?

[Brannart]

no. Enlighten me?

 

You could, say, create three characters and fill the rest of the slots with NPCs. Exactly like this. You could create all six and not use any NPCs at all. So the Adventurer's Guild is just bringing back a feature that was in all IE games...well except for Torment of course.

 

And I guess the idea that just because the game does not voice and have lines for the character they are just a hired goon. The character you create is however you imagine they are.

Edited October 30, 2012 by Brannart

[Sacred_Path]

Did you ever play Baldur's Gate 1 or 2 using the Multiplayer protocol instead of single player?

 

No, for exactly this reason. IMO it takes all the point out of having interactive characters if half of your party consists of puppets. It totally breaks the immersion.

 

Granted it's an IE feature, and hey maybe there will be so many scripted companions that you just don't need the goons. But I doubt that, like in BG2 if you wanted a certain party makeup or make use of many kits you HAD to start an MP game.

[Jasede]

It's a feature. It won't influence your regular gaming experience of pre-made companions one iota. It's explicitly there for people who grew up on dungeon crawlers and wouldn't mind playing the game with their own, self-created party of puppets. Your opinion regarding its merit or its immersion-breaking qualities is irrelevant as this will do nothing to interfere, diminish or alter your experience of the game in any way.

 

Have a nice day.

[JohanKris]

No, for exactly this reason. IMO it takes all the point out of having interactive characters if half of your party consists of puppets. It totally breaks the immersion.

 

 

Immersion? if you create all characters you can imagine them any way you want. As for Bg there hardly were much of "interactive characters", sure you could talk a big with them with a very few choices, but that was it. I came from games were you made your own party and I sure did that in BG too. Half the IE games there was no companions to talk about at all.

[Frisk]

Personally I don't like the Adventurer's guild at all. I by far prefer fleshed-out companions with a backstory, independent motivations and so on, even if they are not "optimized" like a player-created party would be.

 

This is because of the interaction, the dialogue and all the other details that made PS:T and BG a great game from my point of view, while games like IWD were just something I played through once and then put on the shelf.

[Sacred_Path]

Immersion? if you create all characters you can imagine them any way you want. As for Bg there hardly were much of "interactive characters", sure you could talk a big with them with a very few choices, but that was it. I came from games were you made your own party and I sure did that in BG too. Half the IE games there was no companions to talk about at all.

 

It seems as if they're trying to satisfy two groups of players, and while I commend them for it I still find it a bit cringe-inducing. Granted, we don't know yet exactly how interactive companions and goons will be. Since one of the influences cited for PE is TOEE, I could imagine that even player-created chars have some opinions one way or another (like the loot grabbing in TOEE).

 

Oh, and I fully acknowledge that what breaks immersion is completely subjective. Don't wet yourself over it.

[Jasede]

But that doesn't matter because it clearly wasn't made for people like you. It's simply there for the Wizardry, IWD and Might & Magic crowd- a crowd, might I add, that no big developer caters to anymore. It's completely irrelevant what you prefer in this regard because it has no bearing on this. It's exactly like saying "I don't like rollercoasters" while going to an amusement park. So what? There's haunted houses and balloon popping or whatever it is you desire; you don't have to like the rollercoaster.

[evdk]

Personally I don't like the Adventurer's guild at all. I by far prefer fleshed-out companions with a backstory, independent motivations and so on, even if they are not "optimized" like a player-created party would be.

 

This is because of the interaction, the dialogue and all the other details that made PS:T and BG a great game from my point of view, while games like IWD were just something I played through once and then put on the shelf.

Well since the Adventurer Hall is just an optional add on it needs not bother you, unless you have some kind of disorder forcing you to make use of all the game's features

[Jasede]

In before "Then why are romances bad? They are optional!!!"

[JayDGee]

the feature is mostly there to give the player an extra level of control over their playing choice.

 

Do you want a squad of 6 paladins running around the land righting wrongs? OK traps will probably kill you but OK.

 

Personally it's not a feature I'll use, I think character interaction is what often makes these games. I can understand really disliking a certain npc's personality but liking there skillset and remaking them as a mute. You all have an npc you would love to mute.

[Bill Gates' Son]

no. Enlighten me?

 

You could, say, create three characters and fill the rest of the slots with NPCs. Exactly like this. You could create all six and not use any NPCs at all. So the Adventurer's Guild is just bringing back a feature that was in all IE games...well except for Torment of course.

 

And I guess the idea that just because the game does not voice and have lines for the character they are just a hired goon. The character you create is however you imagine they are.

 

So what are you complaining about exactly? The Adventurers' Guild NPCs are optional, so you don't have to use them at all. The AG NPCs are mainly for testing out weird parties, min/maxing characters, or RPing your own party. Just.....don't use them?

Edited October 30, 2012 by Bill Gates' Son

[Sacred_Path]

But that doesn't matter because it clearly wasn't made for people like you. It's simply there for the Wizardry, IWD and Might & Magic crowd- a crowd, might I add, that no big developer caters to anymore. It's completely irrelevant what you prefer in this regard because it has no bearing on this. It's exactly like saying "I don't like rollercoasters" while going to an amusement park. So what? There's haunted houses and balloon popping or whatever it is you desire; you don't have to like the rollercoaster.

 

Where did you get the idea that I don't like party creation? I have played and liked both types of games; the point is I'm not sure that both approaches mix well.

Edited October 30, 2012 by Sacred_Path

[JohanKris]

Where did you get the idea that I don't like party creation? I have played and liked both types of games; the point is I'm not sure that both approaches mix well.

 

I think you need to expand on that. What in the game is affected by this? Remember that player created characters don't impact on the world apart from combat (or possibly some skill use), which makes their exclusion or inclusion a non-factor as for what is in the game compared to if it was with only pre-written companions. They just have less dialogue

[BruceVC]

So from what I gathered there will be fully fleshed-out companions, and chars from the Adventurers' Guild that will basically just be hired goons. How are these supposed to blend together? Personally, i don't think they will mesh very well.

 

I don't think this will effect your gaming experience at all? You can choose who you want in your party.

 

I must raise a point that I hope doesn't detract from this discussion. Why do people object to Romance\Sex in the game as these can be completely optional. As are certain party members in PE.

[Jasede]

First romance blood!!! Called it.

Edited October 30, 2012 by Jasede

[Sacred_Path]

I think you need to expand on that. What in the game is affected by this? Remember that player created characters don't impact on the world apart from combat (or possibly some skill use), which makes their exclusion or inclusion a non-factor as for what is in the game compared to if it was with only pre-written companions. They just have less dialogue

 

Apart from dialogue, companions could have personal quests, leanings towards certain factions etc. All that is speculation right now. I'd just find it somewhat... strange to have mute puppets and fully scripted companions in one party. I'm not saying it's a design flaw, nor that they should remove one of these options. If anything, I'm hoping that they make characters from the AH a bit more seemingly possessed of their own will than they were i.e. in BG so the contrast isn't so stark.

[BruceVC]

First romance blood!!! Called it.

 

Lol, you are funny Jasede

 

But by your logic there is a correlation between the 2 topics, ignore certain party members and ignore Romance options if you want . I was just raising this

[BasaltineBadger]

Lack of immersion is not a valid argument against the game, just because you realize that you are in fact person in front of the computer and not elven bard doesn't make the game bad.

[Labadal]

The AH is more of a bonus. You'll get your story companions, but you can also use the AH to roam the world with six monks or whatever.

 

They basically give you the best of both worlds.

[Sacred_Path]

Lack of immersion is not a valid argument against the game, just because you realize that you are in fact person in front of the computer and not elven bard doesn't make the game bad.

 

That's like saying a movie script that builds on unrealistic assumptions and defies believing isn't bad because it's a work of fiction anyways. Not a valid argument in itself.

 

 

But just for the record I don't in the slightest expect this game to fail. I wouldn't have pledged for the collector's edition if I did. Just having some doubts about one or two things isn't saying it's a bad game.

Edited October 30, 2012 by Sacred_Path

[Cryticus]

You are all aware that adventure guild is not requiered to have full party?

From what I heard , you can construct party from companions in game and not once go to adventure guild , it is just a option for thouse who want to challange themselves with certeain class combination, or play just for the game and not story (belived or not there are such people).

Also people need to stop using argument of immersion, just roleplay , In Icewind Dale you creater your whole party, and nobody talked, and still characters from this games have propobly more interesting backstory and motovation then my charname from BG.

I swear on Bethesda forum I have seen situation when people say that because they can't bumps uglies and marry one character it breaks their Immersion

[Brannart]

no. Enlighten me?

 

You could, say, create three characters and fill the rest of the slots with NPCs. Exactly like this. You could create all six and not use any NPCs at all. So the Adventurer's Guild is just bringing back a feature that was in all IE games...well except for Torment of course.

 

And I guess the idea that just because the game does not voice and have lines for the character they are just a hired goon. The character you create is however you imagine they are.

 

So what are you complaining about exactly? The Adventurers' Guild NPCs are optional, so you don't have to use them at all. The AG NPCs are mainly for testing out weird parties, min/maxing characters, or RPing your own party. Just.....don't use them?

 

I am not complaining. I like the feature. Probably won't use it but if I get an idea of a band of adventurers I want to RP it is nice I can.