Make Companions Memorable

[TRX850]

In the real world, we all know both likeable and annoying people. It's an inevitable part of life. And so on paper, it would make perfect sense to bring that rationale into the game world. We don't always like who we get to work with, or who we have as a companion by our side while adventuring.

 

However, I would now suggest that we turn that rationale on its head and punch it in the spleen. Hard.

 

If you consider all the playable companions in past IE games, the NWN series, and any other franchise for that matter, you will know which characters stand out from the rest, either for being likeable, or a right royal pain in the wotsit. Some players aren't bothered too much by it, but from reading game forums over the years, it's clear that many players will actively avoid certain companions, even to the point of foregoing side quests just so they don't have to listen to them.

 

Now I know it's still a player's choice as to whom they have in their party, but my suggestions is this: if having a full range of character traits in the game world is inevitable, then consider making the less likeable types as true NPCs, such as commoners, quest-givers, plot characters, villains, and other enemies.

 

And for the record, a likeable character doesn't have to be good and morally upright. Take Hannibal Lecter for example. Yes, he will eat your liver, with some fava beans and a nice chianti, but he is also highly intelligent, and in conversation is a perfect gentleman. To me, he's a likeable, memorable character. Would I like him in my party? er....I'll get back to you on that.

 

Now having said all that, I actually think that some amount of bickering and moaning between companions can be quite entertaining....if it's done well. There's a fine line between someone who complains a lot and someone who is constantly annoying. Maybe it's partially down to voice acting, and partially down to the script. Writers don't always receive credit for the work they do. And those among you who have studied creative writing will know how daunting it can be.

 

I think my overall point is if there is a perceived disincentive NOT to have certain companions in your party, then convert that into an incentive to confront undesirable NPCs. Sometimes bringing real world rationale into a game world has an unintentional negative effect on the gaming experience itself.

 

Does anyone have any examples, or thoughts on what we should learn from likeable or unlikeable game characters?

[TRX850]

Oooo-kay. An example of what I mean is, over the years there have been many internet forums listing all the companions in IE games and other CRPG franchises in their perceived order of usefulness or likeability. And this is only someone's opinion. But there are many of these lists out there essentially doing the same thing: praising certain companions for being useful and likeable, and slating others for being god awful.

 

And yes. It's unfair.

 

Or is it?

 

The reason I brought it up is because I would not want to see the same thing happen with P:E. I would assume the devs are wise to "post-release criticism" already, by not giving players a reason in the first place for slating a character because they are simply deemed "annoying".

 

And by the way, these are not my comments, but comments from connoisseurs of the IE games in particular. I'm just the messenger here.

 

Some examples that come to mind are Quayle and Xan from BG, and Grobnar and Neeshka from NWN2. And from memory, the main reason why people slate them is due to terrible stats and/or whiny dialogue. Players seem to be particularly put off by whiny or neurotic voice acting that either sounds too modern or too cartoony.

 

I'm not here to overly criticize what's happened in the past. Just to raise awareness that sometimes, despite the best efforts of writers and character designers hoping to "keep things real" it often backfires, and even the players who claim to enjoy playing terrible characters or henchmen eventually tire of the idea and adjust their party line-up on the next playthrough.

[LadyCrimson]

I personally loved Xan, he made me laugh.

 

I can see why some people don't like some companions because of "weak stats" but that, to me, is part of the game. Most of the time such companions do have their uses, just not the obviously powerful type a lot of people want. Yet to remove the seemingly weaker as an option seems kind of cheesy, simply because ... should all companions then have awesome combat stats and skills? Kind of defeats the purpose of having to plan/make choices, seems like.

 

In terms of personality stuff, that's just subjective and it'd be pretty darn silly to task a developer to make a companion that "no one" would dislike their personality (to the point of not wanting to use them just because of it I mean). There have been plenty of "powerful" and very useful companions in rpg's that I refused to use because the voice acting annoyed me to no end or because I didn't like their side-quest lines or what have you. It happens - it's gaming. No big deal, imo.

[Gfted1]

P:E only has ~5-6 companions total anyway right? You will either have to take most (all?) or resort to creating deaf mutes in the adventurers hall.

 

I dont think Ive ever had a companion that annoyed me so much I kicked them from the party.

[Alexjh]

This is a bit of a difficult issue to guage, because everyone has different tastes in people and thus everyone has different tastes in companion characters.

 

Looking at the Bioware/Black Isle/Obsidian back catalogue I'm not sure I can ever see a pattern within my own choices: I'd place the likes of Minsc, Mazzy, Keldorn, Annah, Tali, Okku, Wrex, Sand, Garrus, Wildflower, Aveline, Varric and the Mabari as some of my favourites.

 

In contrast the characters I don't really care for are a bit easier to categorise: they tend to be the explicitly evil ones (not to be confused with nasty ones) but I really don't like the "muahahah aren't I so evil" sort of characters some games present - that evil ranger in NWN2 or various characters from BG fall here. I also don't care for ones which feel really plot imposed - that githzerai lady from NWN2 just didn't interest me whatsoever, and I found it annoying that she or Jerro suddenly had to take up a party slot.

 

As a rule though the voice acting makes a huge difference - I wanted to like Neeshka for instance as she had a fairly sad character arc, but her voice was just quite grating. Give her a less shrill voice and she'd be much better. If you are going to have an annoying character their voice needs to have the gravitas to pull the player back...

[Solviulnir the Soulbinder]

NPCs in any game are representing (or should represent) a cross-section of the whole society in a given fictional world. To make the whole game world a believable place NPC need to be just like real people (with necessary stat adjustments for their preferred class). They should have their strengths and weaknesses. Having said that they also need to have diverse personalities, something that makes those few memorable. Be it an outspoken and cheerful druid who excels in saving your party with healing spells when the s*** gets thick or a bipolar mage, suicidal but having access to unique and powerful spells. Not to take it to the extreme but imho in every fictional world there should be place for diversity. Anyhow a *useful* NPC is a good NPC (that's basically why the player would try to recruit such person to his party in the first place). Be it thanks to the stats, class, weapon specialization, or overall harmonious build. Problem appears when a character fails at being useful to the party in any way. Imho this flaw in NPC design can be, to a certain degree, mitigated by giving them an exceptional personality, be it good or bad... or something that will intrigue the player in some way (space hamsters ftw). A flaw is a flaw however, a poorly designed character, a character designed without heart, without something which in some way makes him or her a hero, should just not qualify to the (limited) party of six.

 

Mind you that I'm talking mainly about NP characters that you can recruit to your party, not the NPCs that provide you with quests, chit-chat, steel or lemons.

Although the above extends to a certain degree to the former as well.

[TRX850]

I'm all for a wide variety of choice, particularly in stats that reflect real world characters. Often, flawed characters are best, or the most memorable.

 

I wouldn't want to see min-maxed, perfectly optimized characters. That suggests the game devs have influenced that character role too much in an obvious direction.

 

I think the voice acting is half the battle though. Take Neeshka for example. An excellent rogue, stat-wise and skill-wise. But it did seem her voice and characterization fell under a modern "brat culture" stereotype. I mean, you could debate how she is based on a known stereotype which makes her realistic, but there's a big difference between acknowledging that and having her play by your side the whole campaign. Being forced to grit your teeth and bare it is a tricky thing to quantify.

 

I kinda like characters who nitpick and are opinionated about in-game matters, if they know they're being sarcastic or ironic. It's when you're asked to take an annoying character seriously, that's when players often reach their tolerance threshold.

 

The thing is, we should have a wide variety of choice, however, the more reasons you give a player NOT to choose one particular henchman over a perceived better henchmen, means that all the hard work the devs have put into the less desirable character is not fully utilized.

 

If there was a way to measure how players choose henchmen over a period of time, it would be interesting to see if there was a pattern that meant certain henchmen appeared at the bottom of the list. And if this was the case, rather than change them into thoroughly-lovely-right-on-likeable-chaps, just adjust a few small things that put them on par with the others, but don't change fundamental aspects.

[rjshae]

I'm not too concerned about memorable characters; just having two or three such would be sufficient. But it's interesting to take a look at the BG/BG2 walkthroughs and see why different companions are preferable. A good game design should make all of the companions roughly equal in their usefulness, yet give different gaming experiences.

[LadyCrimson]

If there was a way to measure how players choose henchmen over a period of time, it would be interesting to see if there was a pattern that meant certain henchmen appeared at the bottom of the list. And if this was the case, rather than change them into thoroughly-lovely-right-on-likeable-chaps, just adjust a few small things that put them on par with the others, but don't change fundamental aspects.

I personally have two main things that affect how I choose/who I keep in story/chr-rpg's:

 

1 - Do they have any quests or behaviors that interfere with how I personally like to play the game (if they do, they're gone)

2 - Do I like their personality/story (this includes voice acting/battle-cries, if any) or at the least, do not excessively annoy me

 

In regards to #1, if I find out that having companion A in my party means I can't have companion B, and I always prefer B, I will choose B. Or if having companion C means I can't join a Faction I want, out goes C. For me, it's not about stats/skills or combat usefulness so much as it is about what choices/consequences there are to having a particular companion. To be clear, I don't mind that I have to make choices. But these choices will often dictate which companions I end up using 9 times out of 10, even on replays.

[moridin84]

Having characters that some will hate and some will love is a good thing, that's what really makes them "memorable". Not every characters needs to be like that but personally I think that at least two of the 6 companions should be the polarizing kind.

 

People are using Neeska from NWN2 as an example of an "unlike-able" character but I totally love that character, she's my favourite character in the game and if I wanted to replay it, 50% of the reason would be "Neeska". Another example would be Bishop (again from NWN2), I didn't like him and lots of other people didn't but he's actually really popular with some (mostly females I believe) people.

 

Of course, it's no good to make characters that everyone hates either. Making characters with strong but questionable views (Bishop) is obviously a good way to do it, that was probably intentional. I doubt Neeska was intended to be such a polarizing character though, funny how things turn out.

 

 

Oh and just for reference, I don't normally pick my companions based on "party balance", I generally pick based on who I like though I don't completely ignore party balance. In a game with lots of companions I'll generally rotate what (likeable) companions I take. That's how important the personality of companions are to me.

Edited January 8, 2013 by moridin84

[Nonek]

I wonder if you could have a character who is not memorable at all? A Cipher who does not wish to be seen, or heard. The ultimate man of mystery. When clicking on his character all you'd hear is an ocassional whisper of, "do not see me." A mass of shadow would represent his avatar, undulating and roiling as he responds to your battle commands.

 

A brief glimpse in the corner of your eye and then gone, an enigma you must decode through behaviour and hints he seems to haunt. Bit too nebulous?

[moridin84]

I wonder if you could have a character who is not memorable at all? A Cipher who does not wish to be seen, or heard. The ultimate man of mystery. When clicking on his character all you'd hear is an ocassional whisper of, "do not see me." A mass of shadow would represent his avatar, undulating and roiling as he responds to your battle commands.

 

A brief glimpse in the corner of your eye and then gone, an enigma you must decode through behaviour and hints he seems to haunt. Bit too nebulous?

He actually sounds really memorable.

[TRX850]

People are using Neeska from NWN2 as an example of an "unlike-able" character but I totally love that character, she's my favourite character in the game and if I wanted to replay it, 50% of the reason would be "Neeska".

 

I don't mean to pick on her really. I too use her for about 50% of my playthroughs. I just grit my teeth when she does her neurotic teenage sex-and-the-city voice over. For me, that aspect of her characterization is something I see as too modern. I don't mean that every character has to speak in Shakespearean iambic pentameter, but sometimes there is a clash of time periods going on with dialogue in games.

 

Going out on a limb here, I think maybe we're often too cautious about the whole diversity thing, as if we've been conditioned by society to accept that political correctness is the only way to go when it comes to tolerance. In the real world, social behaviour and tolerance is one thing. In the game world, I don't think it always makes for the best gaming experience, regardless of character diversity, flaws, agendas, and personal stories.

 

I can only reiterate that I personally am all for a diverse range of henchmen, with attitudes and opinions that I might not agree with. Sometimes I like to play characters who come out with things that nobody ever expects. To me, that's more interesting than a henchmen who clings to a half-baked idea and never changes.

 

Maybe if they all had their chance to shine in some amazing way, in spite of their regular traits; a temporary contradiction almost, that would go a long way to giving them replay value.

Edited January 8, 2013 by TRX850

[TRX850]

I wonder if you could have a character who is not memorable at all? A Cipher who does not wish to be seen, or heard. The ultimate man of mystery. When clicking on his character all you'd hear is an ocassional whisper of, "do not see me." A mass of shadow would represent his avatar, undulating and roiling as he responds to your battle commands.

 

A brief glimpse in the corner of your eye and then gone, an enigma you must decode through behaviour and hints he seems to haunt. Bit too nebulous?

He actually sounds really memorable.

 

He sounds like Boba Fett.

[Tauron]

make companions killable...that is one memorable feature from the BG tutu that I enjoyed, for ooh every time i played it. Petrify insolent ones and come back watching the pigeons **** on them! hehehe

[TRX850]

make companions killable...that is one memorable feature from the BG tutu that I enjoyed, for ooh every time i played it. Petrify insolent ones and come back watching the pigeons **** on them! hehehe

 

See, I'd have someone like Tauron in my party because he has a clearly defined goal. And it leaves open the possibility that one day he will try to petrify someone he shouldn't have messed with, and then a new chapter begins, and he is changed somehow.

 

Pigeons? Really?

[TRX850]

This is why I started this thread.

 

http://www.gamebanshee.com/baldursgate/strategies/npcguide2.php

 

and

 

http://www.gamefaqs.com/pc/75251-baldurs-gate/faqs/2459

 

 

And I'm not saying we should get a frowny face on at the authors of these articles, just that we understand that this is what happens when perceived character design flaws rub players the wrong way.

[Hormalakh]

I don't think Chris Avellone is really much into making memorable companions. That's too old school.

[Tamerlane]

I demand that I not be able to remember anything about this game when I am done with it.

[SophosTheWise]

Also, make people speak differently, and by differently I don't mean different Scottish or English accents. I mean give them a different vernacular, give them different ways to talk. That's what I absolutely miss in modern RPGs where everyone seems to speak in a very modern and urban fashion.

 

Also, as cheesy as that may sound, I want old and archaic things.... "Helm watch over thee upon thy quest!"

[TRX850]

I don't think Chris Avellone is really much into making memorable companions. That's too old school.

 

I can't tell if you're joking or not.

 

It may be that "likeable" or "memorable" are the wrong words here. There's something phony about a character who wants to be liked.

 

Maybe we need to think of them as "compelling" or "intriguing" ?

 

The reasoning behind getting it right is the same. But if they're now compelling or intriguing, then....

[Tamerlane]

I also do not want to be either compelled or intrigued.

[BruceVC]

I agree memorable characters make a huge difference, as mentioned by others for me having interesting party members is one of the reasons I make certain choices in the game. I enjoy there feedback and I consider what impact a choice I make may have around my relationship with them. It would be interesting to see a situation where a party feels betrayed by you and then leaves the party only to have to face him later in combat.

[Tauron]

See, I'd have someone like Tauron in my party because he has a clearly defined goal. And it leaves open the possibility that one day he will try to petrify someone he shouldn't have messed with, and then a new chapter begins, and he is changed somehow.

 

well...you can incinerate, disintegrate, but those are temporary highs (you gotta love effects!)...petrify is simply less permanent and you just might need them again...see its not that cruel. I am not sure i like idea Tauron being someone's companion, he is way to great to share glory...solo all the way if game mechanics is not forcing to have someone at the time.

 

btw, yes memorable companions is good...I dont want to be restricted in how and whn, getting rid of annoying companions after they have outwelcomed their usefullness. There are few games and even very good games that forces you, becouse they force you to have companions. they might be part of main story etc This is not the case with PE, devs have so said. You have some companions whom you can share advantures with and interact in some way if that is your preferance, if you think it adds to your immersion. They will have their personalities, problems, maybe side quests..if you are player who is companion "pleaser" yes, go ahead, knock yourself out even after it doesnt make sense why they behave way they do, stupid scripted conversations where for no reason you loose "influence" points after really putting effort into it and being punished becouse you and devs have different opinions on lets say morality and ethics...well after DAO, I say screw that. If I need some idiot like Alistair and than dispose of him and say he died heroes death, would be so rewarding. Yet we dont, until game says whn we can kill him. I and countless others dont like that. That is why I like memorable feature from BG, kill your companions, kill them even in sight of other companions an say uh ops, i mis spelled that spell, oh my...so dont like dont need Xar, go send him to his death, need Minsc, no love for Dynaheir, do the same. It is memorable becouse you can imagine just how you disposed of them hehe. What is not to like?

 

Pigeons? Really?

 

It is a dot above the ı that makes i. It looks cool in my minds eye, pigeons are lacking in the game :D but It is not like I am forcing them to do their thing on the statue...its lame cliche...pigeons and statues, bird poop. It is nature i guess...i saw that on discovery channel so it has to be true

[Hormalakh]

I don't think Chris Avellone is really much into making memorable companions. That's too old school.

 

I can't tell if you're joking or not.

 

It may be that "likeable" or "memorable" are the wrong words here. There's something phony about a character who wants to be liked.

 

Maybe we need to think of them as "compelling" or "intriguing" ?

 

The reasoning behind getting it right is the same. But if they're now compelling or intriguing, then....

 

http://forums.obsidi...aracterization/

 

Chris Avellone is the guy who's come up with some of the most loved and well-known characters in RPGs.

Edited January 9, 2013 by Hormalakh