Make Companions Memorable

[Lephys]

Hopefully we will get companions that are much more complex than the standard archtypes (self-centred rogue, self-righteous priest, etc).

 

The type of character development you are suggesting for companions feels too heavy-handed for my tastes. Though I might be just nitpicking at this point, you are likely just trying to emphasize your point?

 

Indeed. I wasn't necessarily suggesting that a Rogue companion be a certain personality. I was only using that specific personality (because it was so simply, and therefore easy to think of) as an example to emphasize my point regarding the differences between one-dimensional companions and multi-faceted ones that at least simplistically simulate the dynamics of human thoughts and beliefs. It seems to be an important aspect that the more memorable, quality cRPG companions have in common.

 

To be honest, I'm not entirely certain what you mean/what you're referring to that seemed "too heavy-handed."

[AGX-17]

Examples of unlikeable characters tend to be everywhere in JRPGs.

 

Vanille.

Rikku

 

Just to name two.

 

Kakkoi monogatari, aniki.

[TRX850]

Examples of unlikeable characters tend to be everywhere in JRPGs.

 

Vanille.

Rikku

 

Just to name two.

 

Kakkoi monogatari, aniki.

 

Don't forget to tell us why you think they're likeable or unlikeable. It may be obvious to some, or a mystery to others that don't know the characters in question.

[Sacred_Path]

I think you've got to give them deeper psyche's than simply splitting them up at a choice intersection. Kind of the similar thing I said in the villains thread. It's just... I don't know, inherently boring to the subconscious processing power of our brains to have someone who follows you around saying "I'm part of a holy order, and holiness is good, because yay holiness! You did something that was bad?! That's bad because it's not good! I don't like it 'cause it's bad!" And every time you do something that isn't directly within the walls of their holy creed, it's automatically bad. There aren't ever any other factors involved, so you end up with a huge string of binary switches. "Was it holy and good? Then I like it. Was it not? Then I hate it."

 

It depends on the character though. Let me cite Keldorn again; if for example a character belongs to a faction that is generally narrow-minded and enforces this behaviour in its members, there's no reason why your companion shouldn't conform to it. Characters that try hard to go against the grain are mostly a PITA. That's why I said characters should be grounded in the world they lived in before they met you, rather than standing out at all costs.

[Lephys]

It depends on the character though. Let me cite Keldorn again; if for example a character belongs to a faction that is generally narrow-minded and enforces this behaviour in its members, there's no reason why your companion shouldn't conform to it. Characters that try hard to go against the grain are mostly a PITA. That's why I said characters should be grounded in the world they lived in before they met you, rather than standing out at all costs.

 

I agree very much with that. I just think that only one or the other (sense that they're grounded in the world, their susceptibility to the changes in the world in which they're grounded) leaves them with something missing. Their beliefs regarding helping people shouldn't change every time a leave blows past, but nor should their desire to help all people never ever be shaken by something (specifically due to the complexity of their reason for believing thusly.) If they're never conflicted about anything, ever, they don't bring as much to the table. Again, they might be conflicted, then still arrive at the same decision on a matter. But, just saying "Nope, this is what I do, no matter what happens, ever" is pretty silly.

 

Take a zombie apocalypse story. Someone might have never killed anyone in their life. Maybe they're a pacifist. Maybe their wife turns undead, and goes after their daughter. If that character just sits there and says "Well, I don't believe in killing, and that's that, u_u" and never even flinches, there's something highly wrong with them. They are an android, not a person. They might be very, very conflicted by the seeming logic in killing their zombie wife clashing with their stalwart belief that that's still killing and it should never, ever be done, and they might still, ultimately not-kill her, and just try their best to get their daughter to safety. Either way, it's going to affect them.

[Sacred_Path]

If they're never conflicted about anything, ever, they don't bring as much to the table. Again, they might be conflicted, then still arrive at the same decision on a matter. But, just saying "Nope, this is what I do, no matter what happens, ever" is pretty silly.

 

Of course this involves some meta-gamey LARPing on my part. If I get companions that show extremely one-dimensional behaviour I just assume they have their reasons. Why is Montaron a self-serving murderous little halfling? Don't know, don't care, extreme personal experience or indoctrination would be possible. While it would probably increase my immersion if Monty himself offered some insight on why he is the way he is, I don't need him to act out his inner conflicts (if he has any). That's more LARPing on my part though; as fantasy worlds tend to be monster-filled and war-torn, I assume this drives people into more extreme philosophies as they offer, ostensibly, more sense of stability and security.

[Lephys]

Well, yeah, you don't need to find out everything about him. However, if he's traveling about with you the the entire time, and you're dealing with some kind of global dilemma, and saving each other's necks and such, I'd just expect him to act like more than a lifeless golem. Your character gets all these choices throughout the entire game, and you, the player, consider these and sometimes change your mind before actually picking one, yet here are your companions, alongside you (literally) while this is all going on, and they're all perfectly content to never show the effects of anything upon them, or let any self-doubt slip out, or reveal the tiniest sprinkle of the reasons they are how they are.

 

I don't know what the specific amount should be for this kind of thing in the companions. I just know that if it's not more than none, they tend to lose a layer of liveliness.