Which games have the best companions. What makes them good?

[Archmage Silver]

The Baldur's Gate series. Minsc & Boo, Edwin and the rest! I can't help myself...
 
Tiax Rules!

 

(I don't know why the video has Black Isle all over it - BioWare was the developer, although Black Isle did help Interplay with BG's publishing.)

[Michael_Galt]

I go with BG 2, having even rececently completed Torment.  Torment's characters were good, and interesting, but I just didn't feel any of them "evolved" during the course of the game.  You came to understand them better, and why they were with you, but they didn't actually change in any way.  And unlike in BG, with one notable exception, they didn't have their own storylines after they joined, they just became part of your party.  While there was party banter, it was fairly limited and moderately annoying- lots of Morte hitting on either Falls or Anna, or them making fun of him.  I don't think Dakkon ever said anything.  Ignus would just go on about burning.  Nordom was great, but as an Easter Egg of sorts, I never would have gotten him if I hadn't read through some walkthroughs explaining how to. 

 

I like that in BG 2, you can literally shape how they think.  You can make them more realistic/pragmatic in their worldview, more optimistic/open minded, etc.  Plus, everyone interacted with everyone else.  Also, I just liked the characters more.  Torment was meant to be "different", in the setting, the type of characters, all that.  But, that being said, the only character that I was even remotely concerned about was Falls.  I almost could have for Anna, but she was actually kind of annoying, and the cruddy Irishish accent just irritated me- and I like Irish accents.  Comparatively, I liked lots of the characters in BG 2, and actually cared about what happened to them. 

 

I really liked the characters in KOTOR 2, for much of the same reasons.  That being said, because it wasn't a permanent party configuration, I feel that made the connections less strong.  It wasn't like- "Okay, here we go team!"  It was, "Ok, which team for this mission?"  That is different.  Not, how can I get what I have to work, but, "Well, Atton will likely be better for this than __, so I will bring him."  Same difference with ME.  Plus, the interactions in ME were just so much more pedestrian- usually not about anything important, but more, "How are you feeling?", "I'm sorry this upset you", and "Wow, you are so beautiful and special". 

[Silent Winter]

...

...

Baldur's Gate, I found Khalid, Jaheira, Minsc, Dynaheir and Imoen (I guess... cannon?) really enjoyable in the 30GB modded experience I played. Not asking Obsidian to make a cross-reference in any way but yeah, I just enjoyed it through and through and they really grew on me a lot. I wish that Khalid could man up eventually though, and in my own "imaginarium" I feel he did. Khalid is, in fact, one of my most favorite characters... due to his struggle with his "cowardice" and the dominatrix relationship he has with Jaheira. Both of them, I love them. Specially that Jaheira is a Fighter/Druid is something I liked a lot. Minsc is comic relief and brilliantly written, I had a many laughs with him and Boo

[Karkarov]

Mass Effect wins.  While there are some terrible companions such as Mr. Generic Kaiden Alenko... they are the exception not the rule.  You just had way more good characters, with interesting backgrounds, distinct personality, and unique presentation in that game than in any other on this list.  Especially if you consider it as an entire series of characters to build off of.

 

Every other game on your list has "some" good characters.... well almost all of them.  But the thing is they were out numbered or at least matched by the generic walking cliches, the whiny emo's, and the idiotic annoying comedy relief characters (Minsc being only exception there).

[jamoecw]

well i voted for ME, because i interpreted the poll as the average quality of companion (as the poll was plural, otherwise ME would fall flat on its face, if it was more than one companion but not average i'd say PS:T and if we are talking just one i'd say DA:O or maybe NWN) across the entire series.  minus those i haven't played of course.

[Silent Winter]

That's weird - can't edit my post and it didn't show up right.

I was  trying to say that I agreed with Osvir re: BG and FF characters.

What I found good about BG characters, even in BG1 - they were so endearing.  I cared whether Jahiera and Khalid lived or died and Minsc was just so lovable (Boo too of course).  Their battle cries and click-me one-liners brought them to life and their role in the team made them valuable.  In some other games it's been a multi-legged killing machine with no personality.

BG2 improved on the characters with the added intra-party banter and dialogue interjections along with personal quests.  And now we have the BG1 NPC-Project that adds the same life to BG1.

[PieSnatcher]

To name a few- HK-47, Minsc, Edwin, Morte, Garrus. Also, more.

 

What makes these characters good? Its hard for me to say- they are all so different. I think in order to have a great companion there are many factors that can contribute to it being a great companion; an intriguing back story, well-written dialogue, very human or empathetic motivations (even if they aren't human).  Often they are genuinely funny. I think they need some of these qualities, but a common denominator to me seems to be a well developed personality. HK-47 is enjoyably sadistic. Minsc is an enthusiastically happy (and principled) idiot. Morte- he's a friendly (but possibly treacherous) skull with a fast mouth and a penchant for sarcasm. And I was attached to many ME companions because the three-game arc allowed me time to care about them and what happens to them (which is partly why I am a little dismayed with the end of the trilogy).

[DCParry]

There are a lot of good companions in many of the games listed.

 

But they all pale in comparison to the one, the ONLY, DEEKIN!

 

He makes up for the other generally lack luster NPC's in the original NWN and shines like a twinkling, unique, doom singing star. 

[BruceVC]

There are a lot of good companions in many of the games listed.

 

But they all pale in comparison to the one, the ONLY, DEEKIN!

 

He makes up for the other generally lack luster NPC's in the original NWN and shines like a twinkling, unique, doom singing star. 

 

You really like Deekin don't you

[Silent Winter]

I'm playing through NWN2 at the moment and it's not that I dislike the characters (well, not all of them) but I hate  the way the game forces some of them  into your team.  There are only 3 slots and sometimes you're forced to use one up with a particular character.

 

I can understand having to take Khelgar to go to the Ironfist caves or some other optional-side-quest pairing but to have the Paladin or Ranger forced on your party for main quest parts, for no other reason it seems than to introduce them to your party, really annoys me.

 

So I hope the companions in P:E are all optional (I'll probably play with them all at some point but on my own terms).  Personal side-quests are fine (IF I choose to have them in my party) but my party for the main game should be my choice.

 

FF did this party-forcing too for some areas of some games but it usually tied it to an in-game reason.  Still prefer not to have it at all.

[DCParry]

I'm playing through NWN2 at the moment and it's not that I dislike the characters (well, not all of them) but I hate  the way the game forces some of them  into your team.  There are only 3 slots and sometimes you're forced to use one up with a particular character.

 

I can understand having to take Khelgar to go to the Ironfist caves or some other optional-side-quest pairing but to have the Paladin or Ranger forced on your party for main quest parts, for no other reason it seems than to introduce them to your party, really annoys me.

 

So I hope the companions in P:E are all optional (I'll probably play with them all at some point but on my own terms).  Personal side-quests are fine (IF I choose to have them in my party) but my party for the main game should be my choice.

 

FF did this party-forcing too for some areas of some games but it usually tied it to an in-game reason.  Still prefer not to have it at all.

 

A four member party does feel a bit restrictive, and I agree that is often a problem in really connecting with many of the companions (the first mod I ever used for DA:O was the one where Dog acted as a summon as opposed to taking up a companion slot. I know it makes the game easier, and he doesn't have much of a character, but having him get the kill shot on the Ogre at Ostagar convinced me I needed him in my party at all times). I had similar feelings about the KotORs in reference to party size.

 

Luckily, I think the size of the party in PE will help with companion interaction (both with the PC and with each other). 

[Chrononaut]

I have never really liked companions in cRPG's to be honest, they never seem to fit the type of character I want in my party at the time (stats, class, etc). And if they have banter, it's just annoying. Thankfully PE will have an Adventurer's Hall so one can just have a traditional blank-slate party

[Malekith]

KOTOR2 and Planescape:Torment

[Sistergoldring]

I'm voting Dragon Age straight down the line for this poll but only because DAO has been my latest gaming obsession and those characters are the nearest to my heart right now. Really there are so many amazing personalities in so many of the games on the list that it's impossible to really pick the 'best'. Although I think Varric from DA2 really might stand a chance of taking out my personal all time favourite party member.....it's the chest hair, I admit it!

[Chrononaut]

The problem with Dragon Age is that the companions didn't end up looking like they did in the concept/promotional art.

 

Leliana was supposed to be this red-haired sex bomb in the promotional material, but in the 3d game she ended up looking hideous.

 

EDIT: Thankfully PE is going to represent characters by 2D portraits though not by 3D rendered faces.

Edited August 8, 2013 by Chrononaut

[AGX-17]

 

B) "Best" is a subjective term as this is all opinion-based.

1) It's actually partially subjective, and partially objective.

2) Since the subjective desires of the players are part of the aim of a game's design, even the subjective aspect is relevant to the objectivity of the design.

 

Just for what it's worth... 8P

 

It's entirely subjective. some people legitimately think things commonly held to be **** to be the "best." You know, like juggalos.

 

In the proper context, maybe some people prefer silent killbots or poorly written mary-sues. Just look at the world of fanfiction.

Edited August 8, 2013 by AGX-17

[Naurgalen]

Planescape wins easily, because it has something that even great competitors like ME, KOTOR, NWN:MOTB and FF games lack: characters that ARE 100% part of the history.

They are not there because they just want to have adventure or fun, their very lives / existanses are related to the Nameless past incarnations. Most in ways / chains that they cant even broke. I don't want to spoiler things, but if you didn't see those relations or percibe how they evolve in the game is because you didn do the proper in game investigation / conversations. Its not that they "fit" into the history, they are a part of it and by learning from them you learn about yourself. This, like someone before said, is however a merit from the history itself and not only the characters designs.

 

Ps: While I love BG2 / KOTORs and his characters I really feel that ME, NWN2:MOTB and at least 2 FF (6 and 9) are far superior in a quality/quantity relation.

[Jarmo]

The problem with Dragon Age is that the companions didn't end up looking like they did in the concept/promotional art.

Leliana was supposed to be this red-haired sex bomb in the promotional material, but in the 3d game she ended up looking hideous.

 

 

.... umm.. yeah. I'd almost write a slightly pointy reply, but the appearance is important.

In NWN2 I'd probably have found good use for a competent cleric... but the lady space-frog was such a.... non-babe.

 

Not the key thing in making of a great companion maybe, but... ahh crap it is a key thing.

 

Any links to pre-game Leliana material? Never seen myself.

Edited August 9, 2013 by Jarmo

[Lephys]

It's entirely subjective. some people legitimately think things commonly held to be **** to be the "best." You know, like juggalos.

 

In the proper context, maybe some people prefer silent killbots or poorly written mary-sues. Just look at the world of fanfiction.

Nope. Since we're talking about the entirety of companions, and not JUST their subjective aspects (hence the "and what makes them good" bit in the topic title), the term "best" actually encompasses both things.

 

If companion A is literally not-at-all functional, and companion B is completely functional and objectively beneficial to the player throughout a game's duration, people could still like companion A better, and say that companion B sucks, but that would only be in subjectivity. Meanwhile, in objectivity, companion B is the clear winner, since objective functionality is one of the roles a video game (specifically RPG) companion is supposed to fill, in this context.

 

Or, if you'd rather, imagine water in the desert. Which is better? Having 5 gallons of water, or having 3 ounces of water, for a trek through the desert? Well, you could say that having to carry 5 gallons of water around isn't appealing to you, so 3 ounces is better. But, no matter who thinks what, having 5 gallons of water will definitely provide more hydration for your trek than 3 ounces, which is definitely a beneficial factor (so long as your goal isn't to die and fail to complete the trek).

 

Obviously the value of water in the desert isn't "entirely subjective." And, therefore, neither is the entirety of an RPG companion's design. Especially as it relates to gameplay.

 

If we were comparing ONLY a list of companions who all bore the exact same objective designs (time spent on dialogue, number of lines, quest content, functionality, etc.), then the only remaining discussion would be completely subjective.

[Jarmo]

 Or, if you'd rather, imagine water in the desert. Which is better? Having 5 gallons of water, or having 3 ounces of water, for a trek through the desert? Well, you could say that having to carry 5 gallons of water around isn't appealing to you, so 3 ounces is better. But, no matter who thinks what, having 5 gallons of water will definitely provide more hydration for your trek than 3 ounces, which is definitely a beneficial factor (so long as your goal isn't to die and fail to complete the trek).

 

 

Or more to your point. Choose between 5 gallons of water or a sweet bottle of your favourite malt whiskey,

which you like a lot but drinking of which will dehydrate you even further and hurt your travel speed.

 

I'm actually strongly in favor of unbalanced companions and making choices.

Like... will you dump your childhood friend the crappy fighter bob,

in favor of frank the half demon spellsword who is twice as effective total champ, but a total arsemaster as a person.

 

Like... I did pick Sarevok the first time i played BG2 and was SO disappointed he was a total wimp when in my party.

(compared to what he was when I was fighting against him)

[Lephys]

Yeah. I just mean that there are objective reasons for rating even a video game character as good, and there are SUBjective reasons for this. And they combine to form our total opinion. This isn't just Pick Your Favorite Color: The Thread.

 

I get mildly irked when people throw out the "Well this is all completely subjective, anyway," especially when they, themselves, have been including objective reasoning in their evaluations. That, and it usually gets tossed out when some kind of dispute or disagreement strikes. *shrug*

[Christliar]

Yeah. I just mean that there are objective reasons for rating even a video game character as good, and there are SUBjective reasons for this. And they combine to form our total opinion. This isn't just Pick Your Favorite Color: The Thread.

 

I get mildly irked when people throw out the "Well this is all completely subjective, anyway," especially when they, themselves, have been including objective reasoning in their evaluations. That, and it usually gets tossed out when some kind of dispute or disagreement strikes. *shrug*

Yeah, I absolutely hate it when a debate springs up and someone throws down the "it's all subjective" card, it just seems like an easy way out of any argument.

 

On-topic: Ehhh, it's a mess, to be honest. KotOR2's Kreia is the best of them all. But you are phrasing the question too restrictively, because not ALL of the characters in a given series or games are good. PS:T's Dak'kon is the most interesting of all the characters in that game, the others I only vaguely remember, although they all seem to represent some sort of torment, be it external (Ignus) or internal and that was awesome. Of all KotORs only Visas and Kreia are truly interesting, the others are all baggage. HK-47 is memorable, but he's just comic relief. NWN2 MotB has Kaelyn and Gann, the others are just there. All the other companions in NWN1 and 2 are boring and one-dimensional. Dragon Age: Origins' characters are one-note cardboard cutouts or have no personality at all (Wynne), so no winners there EDIT: Wait, no, I forgot Shale. She's the only semi-decent character there. DA2 has Varric, but that's it. In Mass Effect only Liara has a character arc, but it's too obvious that she's the pet project.

 

I haven't played the other games, except a little of Baldur's gate 1 where the characters are really underdeveloped unless you have a mod. What more can I say, really. Bioware has bad writers, while Obsidian pour their souls in too few a characters in their games, but that's usually because they haven't the time to flesh them all out.

 

What makes them good is their multi-faceted personalities or uniqueness. They also should have a character arc and not be static the whole game, you know, like a real person. They need to have something to prove that they are their own person and don't just exist to follow the protagonist or further his story. If they are unique (Kaelyn - celestial, Gann- Hagspawn, Visas - Miraluka Sith slave, etc.) their uniqueness should be explored and what sorts of challanges and advantages this comes with should be presented. Etc. etc. WHY a character is good isn't really rocket science, but it's hard writing one. I feel really cliche saying "multi-faceted personalities", but that's the easiest way to explain. I'd have to go through each character I think is good and say why to be able to present a more analyzed opinion.

Edited August 14, 2013 by Christliar

[nikolokolus]

Not much love for Ultima (Black Gate and Serpent Isle being the high water mark).  Damn kids.

[Chilloutman]

Give me tribal with bone of his father stuck in nose which I can put into powerarmor with supersladge hammer and let him loose wild on jet and I will be happy

[bonarbill]

Yeah, I absolutely hate it when a debate springs up and someone throws down the "it's all subjective" card, it just seems like an easy way out of any argument.

 

 

Or people throw the card because the other person starts acting like a jerk by presenting all of their opinions as fact.

Edited August 14, 2013 by bonarbill