Why 9 Charakters only?

[FlintlockJazz]

 

 

I say this i prefer the 6 they made in Neverwinter Nights 2: Mask of the Betrayer the the 12 they made in original NVN2 i prefer quality then number.

Meh...

I personally preferred NWN2 over MotB...inculding most of the characters.

 

 

The only MotB character I liked was that angel chick.

I can't even remember the name of any character from MoTB. HM..there was a bold psycho chick too that LUVED me even tough I never did anything.

 

From NWN2 I remember most of them.

Sand was cool.

Sand was awesome and he was always my main mage but then he didn't have much competition as I despised Qara (current playthrough I'm trying to get as negative influence with her as I can just because, its not hard).

[Iron_JG]

@Sarex

 

Reactivity and banter are part of character depth -- I'm not sure why you assumed I was not including those. If your definition of depth wasn't including those, then it seems to me there'd be little basis on which the player could form an opinion on the character. If their back stories or side quests were the only things a player had to judge them by, if they didn't appreciate the character, they could simply ignore that content (as most games let you do). If that's how you see things working out, then basically the companions, however many there are, fall into a "Hall of Adventurers Plus" category that, it seems to me, poses little risk of annoying/turning off the player. Reactivity and banter strike me as much harder to ignore -- they're throughout the game and automatically triggered in many cases...

[Lephys]

 

Brevity

 

That post is for Ffordesoon. Read my post again...

 

My mistake on the "did I skip it" part, then. The rest of my post still stands, as it is not dependent upon whom you were addressing.

[Adhin]

8 is a good number, more so if they're as complex and interactive as PST and BG2. BG1 list was silly, it was a collection of pre-sets with unique voice sets really. They kinda had some bonus quest stuff that added a little flavor but that was often how you got them into the party.

 

I really, really liked how PST handled companions, BG2 had a ton of growth and development and all that but it was all timed and thrown at you. I loved the party banter, DAO also had a good bit of that which was easily one of the best parts of that game. Really, REALLY hope they do some party banter. Really makes them feel more alive. But back to what I was saying PST I think handled it a tad better, companions rarely forced a conversation on you but if they had something to say, something new, they'd often mention something (with out opening a chat window). Annah, for instance, her green circle would flash and she'd say 'I, I've got somethin' tah say' and you'd be all 'okey dokey' and click her for a conversation and poof, something new that wasn't there before.

 

You could also talk directly to them at any time like any other NPC only they had a lot of stuff to say and go into, BG2 lacked a good bit of that sadly... but again they made it up with just a ton of conversational stuff popping up and how the characters developed over the course of the game. So yeah, 8 is a good number, hopefully means a lot of unique banter and lots of depth and detail and character progression.

 

Also, BG2 was a HUGE freakin' game, biggest of all the IE games and I haven't played a RPG that's quite matched that since. You could say a TES game, I guess, but its not really the same. It's just a lot of space really with some fun linear choiceless stories to experience.

 

-edit-

Oh just remembered something. In BG2 I only ever had 3-4 others with me, the rest I just kinda swapped around for there personal quests then mostly ignored afterwards. Also to fill in any gaps (granted this isn't NEARLY as good as a complex party member) but we 'did' hit that one goal with the Merc Guild... thingy. So if there is only 2-3 companions you like of the 8 you can always fill the gaps with custom characters 'you' make from the merc guild or whatever the heck its called.

 

Probably what I'll do, make like 1 other char with that, have 2-3 others and swap out the last slot to do quests or whatnot from the rest of the cast. Unless I just love all of them to the point I have trouble picking 5 anyway. 3 is a good number of NPC to have for banter and getting deep into there personal development in the story though. To me, anyway.

Edited July 10, 2013 by Adhin

[jamoecw]

has anyone thought that even if there are only 8 NPC party members, that there may be a few different generic banter stuff for adventurer's hall characters, so that they do in fact have some depth.  personally i'd find this preferable to the bg npc situation:

 

"thank you for saving my life, i owe you a debt.  perhaps i could accompany you in order to repay it?"

"of course, the more the merrier!"

"i'm sorry you have too many people already, come back after you have kicked to the curb some other member that i owe my life to."

"will do."

*kicks out his oldest party member*

"why have you forsaken me?  we are both trying to save the sword coast from this vile plot, it will take me too long to form a party of my own, are you sure you want to do this?"

"yep, totally, in fact if i need you i want to be able to find you right here in the middle of this very hostile hobgoblin country, so stay put."

"roger that, i'll stay right here where i should be mauled over in a day or so on my own."

*party alignment stays at 100*

"hey new guy, time to join up!"

"you won't regret this, i take will follow you no matter what, as it is a solemn pact of honour that must be adhered to.  heck there are tales of a great hero that saved the life of one of us and ended up leading a small army by the end of his adventures."

*leaves dedicated npc in wilderness to fend for themselves*

[Adhin]

Yeah the way that was always handled was reeeaaally bizar. BG2 or PST didn't do it much better for that matter. That was one reason I enjoyed KotOR so much (amongst other reasons, like it being awesome) was your ship as some kinda central hub. Everyone you meet who joins you, you know, joins your damn group. They may not be with you fighting but they're there the whole time on your ship doin' stuff and things.

 

Not sure how much sense a 'central camp' (like DAO) would make sense in PE but having less awkward party removable chats and them saying where they'll be (like they did in BG2) can at least help some of the awkwardness. Every time you tried to swap someone out in BG2 they sounded like you just murdered there cat in front of them. Was always so damn weird.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Adventurers' Hall.

 

I expect I will make extensive use of this feature.

 

Now, if only we could have any party member act as party spokesperson, rather than it always being the PC.

[Lephys]

has anyone thought that even if there are only 8 NPC party members, that there may be a few different generic banter stuff for adventurer's hall characters, so that they do in fact have some depth.  personally i'd find this preferable to the bg npc situation:

Is the choice between Adventurer's Hall characters having mild depth and a small number of major NPC companions being designed exactly like they were in BG really a mutually exclusive choice?

 

I'd find both a decent amount of general personality/reactivity from Adventurer's Hall peeps AND significantly-improved-compared-to-the-way-BG-did-it main companions to be quite preferable to just one or the other. Personally.

[rjshae]

 

has anyone thought that even if there are only 8 NPC party members, that there may be a few different generic banter stuff for adventurer's hall characters, so that they do in fact have some depth.  personally i'd find this preferable to the bg npc situation:

Is the choice between Adventurer's Hall characters having mild depth and a small number of major NPC companions being designed exactly like they were in BG really a mutually exclusive choice?

 

I'd find both a decent amount of general personality/reactivity from Adventurer's Hall peeps AND significantly-improved-compared-to-the-way-BG-did-it main companions to be quite preferable to just one or the other. Personally.

 

Any interaction they implement with the characters from the Adventurer's Hall would probably be pretty limited: there's just too many possible variations race/class/background that would need to be taken into account. It wouldn't be cost effective to put a lot of work into variations that wouldn't get used much.

[motorizer]

 

 

has anyone thought that even if there are only 8 NPC party members, that there may be a few different generic banter stuff for adventurer's hall characters, so that they do in fact have some depth.  personally i'd find this preferable to the bg npc situation:

Is the choice between Adventurer's Hall characters having mild depth and a small number of major NPC companions being designed exactly like they were in BG really a mutually exclusive choice?

 

I'd find both a decent amount of general personality/reactivity from Adventurer's Hall peeps AND significantly-improved-compared-to-the-way-BG-did-it main companions to be quite preferable to just one or the other. Personally.

 

Any interaction they implement with the characters from the Adventurer's Hall would probably be pretty limited: there's just too many possible variations race/class/background that would need to be taken into account. It wouldn't be cost effective to put a lot of work into variations that wouldn't get used much.

 

Yeah, but they don't need variations that don't get used much...the word used in the first quoted post was generic.

They just have to say stuff, we know they aren't going to be fleshed out characters.....but it would be nice if they said stuff.

[Lephys]

^ Yeah. I think there could be a basic level if interesting stuff to be had. Maybe you could even pick a few traits for them. After all: They already made the creation system for you to make your main character. Would it really be any extra work to use the same factors and features that already exist to make your Adventurer's Hall companions? Sure, they wouldn't have any pre-written stories and/or direct tie-ins to the lore, but they could still have tertiary stuff, and passive reactivity. Maybe they have traits and/or backgrounds and such, just like you. Maybe you can select a basic personality for them.

 

You'd basically have a default "Adventurer's Hall Dialogue/Reaction Set" for an entire playthrough's potential goings-on, then with just little tweaks here and there. Like "If female, have people say 'she' instead of 'he,' and say THIS line at the part when everyone has to share a communal tent, rather than THIS line." Etc. "If farmer background, have them say THIS line whenever asked about a situation involving wealthy nobles, instead of THIS line."

 

Sure, replayability wouldn't be awesome (though things would still be different with different specific personality options), and they wouldn't be as deep as main companions, but I don't think the general idea is infeasible.

[AGX-17]

Because it's an RPG, not RTSw/P.

[Eiphel]

 

 

I'm not totally sure what you're asking - Better how? Better as in I like them more? Or better in terms of mechanics? And the answer is I usually try and use every single companion in a game if I think they're all well developed. I'll have my favourites who are my 'go to' team, but I'll try and shuffle in other companions when it feels appropriate because I enjoy a well written character even if I don't like them. The difference is, even if I don't like them for their character (in universe), I can like them for their depth and quality of writing (out of universe).

 

 

Yeah, I was talking about liking them more. So you played all the characters in BG in one play through? I never did that because I would only lose xp on them.

 

I've played BG1 now, and honestly, no, I barely paid any attention to the slew of companions beyond the team I initially set up. Why? Because they were so shallow I wasn't invested in any of them. They get a paragraph of backstory, a few lines of meeting dialogue and some combat barks. That's not a character. I was really surprised how utterly characterless they were.

[Bill Gates' Son]

 

 

 

I'm not totally sure what you're asking - Better how? Better as in I like them more? Or better in terms of mechanics? And the answer is I usually try and use every single companion in a game if I think they're all well developed. I'll have my favourites who are my 'go to' team, but I'll try and shuffle in other companions when it feels appropriate because I enjoy a well written character even if I don't like them. The difference is, even if I don't like them for their character (in universe), I can like them for their depth and quality of writing (out of universe).

 

 

Yeah, I was talking about liking them more. So you played all the characters in BG in one play through? I never did that because I would only lose xp on them.

 

I've played BG1 now, and honestly, no, I barely paid any attention to the slew of companions beyond the team I initially set up. Why? Because they were so shallow I wasn't invested in any of them. They get a paragraph of backstory, a few lines of meeting dialogue and some combat barks. That's not a character. I was really surprised how utterly characterless they were.

 

 

In BG1's defense, that's how WRPG companions were back in the days.  The Gold box games, Avenum, Wizardry series, M&M series, etc. were early-mid 90 party based RPGs that either had party members you created from scratch or NPCs who rarely talked at all.  Developed companions weren't a norm until games like Fallout 2, Torment, and BG2 came out.  

Edited July 20, 2013 by Bill Gates' Son

[Sensuki]

Adventurers' Hall.

 

I expect I will make extensive use of this feature.

 

Now, if only we could have any party member act as party spokesperson, rather than it always being the PC.

Won't matter if there's no Charisma stat right ?

[Sarex]

I've played BG1 now, and honestly, no, I barely paid any attention to the slew of companions beyond the team I initially set up. Why? Because they were so shallow I wasn't invested in any of them. They get a paragraph of backstory, a few lines of meeting dialogue and some combat barks. That's not a character. I was really surprised how utterly characterless they were.

 

Point being that you liked the characters that you picked up, someone else would probably pick up different characters, thinking that the others where boring. That is my whole point in this thread, no one is going to like all the characters, but the more characters there are, higher the chance that someone is going to find some they like, regardless of how deep and engaging they are.

[Sannom]

Point being that you liked the characters that you picked up, someone else would probably pick up different characters, thinking that the others where boring.

Actually, no, that's not the point. The point is that in BG, none of the characters are interesting or developped and so changing the set-up of the party based on the personality of the characters is not something you 'can do'.

[Eiphel]

 

I've played BG1 now, and honestly, no, I barely paid any attention to the slew of companions beyond the team I initially set up. Why? Because they were so shallow I wasn't invested in any of them. They get a paragraph of backstory, a few lines of meeting dialogue and some combat barks. That's not a character. I was really surprised how utterly characterless they were.

 

Point being that you liked the characters that you picked up, someone else would probably pick up different characters, thinking that the others where boring. That is my whole point in this thread, no one is going to like all the characters, but the more characters there are, higher the chance that someone is going to find some they like, regardless of how deep and engaging they are.

 

That wasn;t my point at all. My point was I had absolutely no feeling about ANY of the characters.

[Sarex]

 

 

I've played BG1 now, and honestly, no, I barely paid any attention to the slew of companions beyond the team I initially set up. Why? Because they were so shallow I wasn't invested in any of them. They get a paragraph of backstory, a few lines of meeting dialogue and some combat barks. That's not a character. I was really surprised how utterly characterless they were.

 

Point being that you liked the characters that you picked up, someone else would probably pick up different characters, thinking that the others where boring. That is my whole point in this thread, no one is going to like all the characters, but the more characters there are, higher the chance that someone is going to find some they like, regardless of how deep and engaging they are.

 

That wasn;t my point at all. My point was I had absolutely no feeling about ANY of the characters.

 

?

[Eiphel]

 

 

 

I've played BG1 now, and honestly, no, I barely paid any attention to the slew of companions beyond the team I initially set up. Why? Because they were so shallow I wasn't invested in any of them. They get a paragraph of backstory, a few lines of meeting dialogue and some combat barks. That's not a character. I was really surprised how utterly characterless they were.

 

Point being that you liked the characters that you picked up, someone else would probably pick up different characters, thinking that the others where boring. That is my whole point in this thread, no one is going to like all the characters, but the more characters there are, higher the chance that someone is going to find some they like, regardless of how deep and engaging they are.

 

That wasn;t my point at all. My point was I had absolutely no feeling about ANY of the characters.

 

?

 

Well, ok, I didn't pay attention to the original team either. What I meant was once I had a team of six I couldn't be bothered swapping anyone around because none of them felt characterful. I picked my party out based on their combat mechanics and that was that.

[Sarex]

Well, ok, I didn't pay attention to the original team either. What I meant was once I had a team of six I couldn't be bothered swapping anyone around because none of them felt characterful. I picked my party out based on their combat mechanics and that was that.

 

Ok, then I misunderstood.

[Tick]

If they can flesh out every character, then eight is more than enough. Usually, the number of characters that have a full arc and aren't half-baked - or given a fair/equal amount of attention - is far smaller than eight. Fallout: New Vegas suffered from this some, where Arcade Gannon and Raul were relatively hollow or cut off compared to Boone or Veronica. They were really cool characters, but they didn't get as much focus and were somewhat disappointing as a result.

 

I get the idea that more characters means more chance to find an appealing personality/concept, since there are more to pick from, but sheer numbers doesn't compensate for writing; the quality or amount of effort put into it. The more characters the developers make, the less time or work they give them. Or check that they are done well. Suddenly the chance you're gonna get a cliche, stock, obnoxious, repetitive, boring, blank-slate bot with little to no character attached rockets to its zenith. If the entire selection of people you have to work with are worth less than generic blobs, and still very possibly written where they annoy the player, the number of that selection is worthless.

 

 

I liked a couple characters from Baldur's Gate, but only vaguely, and only because their battle lines amused me (Minsk, Xander), or they made killing things far more fun. That's not character, that's not interesting. I could go to the Hall of Adventurer's or mod and create more charming guys than that. Skyrim's companions had the same problem, and the AI was stupid and soulless enough that I named every companion "Lydia [number here]" based on the number of companions that had died before.

 

Yeah, there's a risk you won't like a character, but that risk is greatly based on how well they're written, how much time was put in their creation. Throwing more companions into the blender wouldn't solve the writing issue. And as someone said, I prefer having a reactive, believable character that seems to be in the world and adds to it rather than some dude with a couple one-liners.

Edited July 20, 2013 by Tick

[jamoecw]

 

has anyone thought that even if there are only 8 NPC party members, that there may be a few different generic banter stuff for adventurer's hall characters, so that they do in fact have some depth.  personally i'd find this preferable to the bg npc situation:

Is the choice between Adventurer's Hall characters having mild depth and a small number of major NPC companions being designed exactly like they were in BG really a mutually exclusive choice?

 

I'd find both a decent amount of general personality/reactivity from Adventurer's Hall peeps AND significantly-improved-compared-to-the-way-BG-did-it main companions to be quite preferable to just one or the other. Personally.

 

well considering that i said that there should be a small core of NPCs that could join you in addition of adventurer's hall banter, so that it felt like that you had huge options, instead of having 25 characters who will join with you so long as you only have 5 or less people with you, and willing to walk into the jaws of death itself with you.  but only so long as you don't have some guy help you with your baggage during a dungeon crawl.

 

it was a mistake, in P:T the had 7 NPCs which were more fleshed out, and being so few meant that you only had to reject 2, which is less silly.  do it like that and throw in some banters if you feel your party needs something (adventurer's hall) that the NPCs don't bring to the table and you're good to go.

[Eiphel]

If they can flesh out every character, then eight is more than enough. Usually, the number of characters that have a full arc and aren't half-baked - or given a fair/equal amount of attention - is far smaller than eight. Fallout: New Vegas suffered from this some, where Arcade Gannon and Raul were relatively hollow or cut off compared to Boone or Veronica.

I think Arcade actually had a lot of good material, but it was all very very end-loaded. If you stick with Arcade through the For Auld Lang Syne quest chain, I think he's got the same depth as Veronica. Veronica's background is better paced and parcelled out though.

[Lephys]

well considering that i said that there should be a small core of NPCs that could join you in addition of adventurer's hall banter, so that it felt like that you had huge options, instead of having 25 characters who will join with you so long as you only have 5 or less people with you, and willing to walk into the jaws of death itself with you.  but only so long as you don't have some guy help you with your baggage during a dungeon crawl.

Sorry. I must've missed that part. My bad. I thought you were speaking in favor of just the relatively increased depth of the Adventurer's Hall characters as opposed to just the Baldur's Gate setup.

 

it was a mistake, in P:T the had 7 NPCs which were more fleshed out, and being so few meant that you only had to reject 2, which is less silly.  do it like that and throw in some banters if you feel your party needs something (adventurer's hall) that the NPCs don't bring to the table and you're good to go.

Yeah. Also, I think the characters could have more significance to the overall narrative and places/events/lore comprising it, so that you have actual reasons to take different people on different quests/segments at different times throughout the story. It could still be optional, but, taking Jack instead of Sally on this particular quest/branch/segment might alter the situation a bit: Who you can talk to, how they'll receive you/react to you, how much of the layout of a ruin/location you know about, etc.