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

[Giantevilhead]

My favorite companions are from KotoR 2 and Planescape: Torment. I like how the characters don't feel like they were created to fill a specific role or with a certain archetype in mind. You don't get the sense that a companion was designed from its inception to be the noble stoic warrior or the femme fatale or the plucky underdog, etc. It feels like they were developed naturally and then became a certain way as a result of their experiences. So there's a lot more depth and complexity to them.

 

I also like how they took a lot of risks with the companions. They didn't telegraph everything, they were willing to be subtle. Companions are rarely straightforward and would hide things and tell a lot of half truths. They would lie to you and try to manipulate you. You have to pay attention to the details of their dialogue and actions to get a sense of what their real intentions and motivations are. Even when you earn their trust and they tell you more about themselves, they may still hold certain things back.

 

And I think that's really where the Bioware games fall short with their companions. A lot of companions feel like they were created to serve a purpose and don't really set themselves apart from that. A lot of them also end up talking to you like you're their therapist. There's rarely much subtlety or implied/hidden meanings in what they're saying.

[Lephys]

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

Yeah, 'cause that makes it constructive.

 

"Um, excuse me. Your suggestion that all that stuff you just said was fact is inaccurate, as some of it is subjective. Therefore, I'd like to point out that EVERYTHING IS ACTUALLY 100% SUBJECTIVE! MUAHAHAHA!"

 

That's equally as inaccurate as claiming everything is OBjective.

 

TL;DR -- Two wrongs don't make a right.

[bonarbill]

 

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

Yeah, 'cause that makes it constructive.

 

"Um, excuse me. Your suggestion that all that stuff you just said was fact is inaccurate, as some of it is subjective. Therefore, I'd like to point out that EVERYTHING IS ACTUALLY 100% SUBJECTIVE! MUAHAHAHA!"

 

That's equally as inaccurate as claiming everything is OBjective.

 

TL;DR -- Two wrongs don't make a right.

 

 

You always come off as a pretenious snob in your post.  I'll just simply say I personally don't see anything wrong with it, so I guess we have to agree to disagree.  I'll remove myself from this threat for good and won't say anything else further.

Edited August 15, 2013 by bonarbill

[Lephys]

You always come off as a pretenious snob in your post.  I'll just simply say I personally don't see anything wrong with it, so I guess we have to agree to disagree.  I'll remove myself from this threat for good and won't say anything else further.

Umm... Sorry? o_O

 

I believe there's been a misunderstanding, since I was in no way attacking you. I was merely pointing out that the reason you presented still doesn't justify the throwing out of the "everything's just subjective anyway" card.

 

It's kind of a slap in the face, really. People in the thread have obviously suggested an interest in the value of the objective factors of the implementations and designs of characters in different games, and then someone just comes in and says "Lols, you're just imagining things."

 

It's a tiny bit like saying "You're not right, because everyone's wrong, 8D!". If it's purely subjective, then it's not really a "discussion." It's just a communal sharing of opinions to satiate curiosities.

[Sarex]

Ok, if are going down the objective route (not accounting for personal taste), then DA and ME are hands down (like not even close) the games with the best characters.

 

-Their characters are fully voiced

-Their characters are the most reactive out of all the games mentioned here

-Their characters had the most variety

-Their characters had the largest amount of people play them (out of any game here)

-Their characters are the most talk about on the internet (this is kind of tied to the previous example)

 

If we where gonna go all objective in this thread, then the poll was completely unnecessary.

Edited August 15, 2013 by Sarex

[Malekith]

Ok, if are going down the objective route (not accounting for personal taste), then DA and ME are hands down (like not even close) the games with the best characters.

 

-Their characters are fully voiced-absolutely irrelevant

-Their characters are the most reactive out of all the games mentioned here-not sure what you mean, care to elaborate?

-Their characters had the most variety -BG2

-Their characters had the largest amount of people play them (out of any game here)-Fallout:New Vegas(it's part of Fallout)

-Their characters are the most talk about on the internet (this is kind of tied to the previous example)-BSN it's not "the internet"

 

If we where gonna go all objective in this thread, then the poll was completely unnecessary.

Nothing wrong if you like Bioware companions, but there is nothing "objective" in your list. (Not mine or other people, but you are the one that brought the objective angle)

Edited August 15, 2013 by Malekith

[Sarex]

 

Ok, if are going down the objective route (not accounting for personal taste), then DA and ME are hands down (like not even close) the games with the best characters.

 

-Their characters are fully voiced-absolutely irrelevant -please explain how this is irrelevant? VO adds to the immersion, there is no denying that.

-Their characters are the most reactive out of all the games mentioned here-not sure what you mean, care to elaborate? Just that. They are the most reactive to your choices, each other and the story line

-Their characters had the most variety -BG2 Had the most characters, not necessarily the largest variety.

-Their characters had the largest amount of people play them (out of any game here)-Fallout:New Vegas(it's part of Fallout) Simply not true, not even by the longest of shots. The ME series alone outclasses all the games here together. ME is the largest selling "RPG" ever made.

-Their characters are the most talk about on the internet (this is kind of tied to the previous example)-BSN it's not "the internet" How about Reddit, 4chan and all the image (meme) sharing sites?

 

If we where gonna go all objective in this thread, then the poll was completely unnecessary.

Nothing wrong if you like Bioware companions, but there is nothing "objective" in your list. (Not mine or other people, but you are the one that brought the objective angle)

 

I just joined this thread... My first mention of the word objective was in the post you quoted. I mean read the page my comment is on...

Edited August 15, 2013 by Sarex

[Malekith]

 

 

Ok, if are going down the objective route (not accounting for personal taste), then DA and ME are hands down (like not even close) the games with the best characters.

 

-Their characters are fully voiced-absolutely irrelevant -please explain how this is irrelevant? VO adds to the immersion, there is no denying that.

-Their characters are the most reactive out of all the games mentioned here-not sure what you mean, care to elaborate? Just that. They are the most reactive to your choices, each other and the story line

-Their characters had the most variety -BG2 Had the most characters, not necessarily the largest variety.

-Their characters had the largest amount of people play them (out of any game here)-Fallout:New Vegas(it's part of Fallout) Simply not true, not even by the longest of shots. The ME series alone outclasses all the games here together. ME is the largest selling "RPG" ever made.

-Their characters are the most talk about on the internet (this is kind of tied to the previous example)-BSN it's not "the internet" How about Reddit, 4chan and all the image (meme) sharing sites?

 

If we where gonna go all objective in this thread, then the poll was completely unnecessary.

Nothing wrong if you like Bioware companions, but there is nothing "objective" in your list. (Not mine or other people, but you are the one that brought the objective angle)

 

I just joined this thread... My first mention of the word objective was in the post you quoted. I mean read the page my comment is on...

 

Didn't noticed, sorry.

As for your other point's

VO adds to the immersion, there is no denying that.-Sure it adds.And longer and better writen dialogues add depth, something that doesn't happen in fully voiced games. That's why i think partialy voiced companions like in PS:T or BG2  is the best from both worlds as it allows immersion by seting the character's voice, but at the same time allow the writer to write as much as he wants

They are the most reactive to your choices, each other and the story line.Just no. In BG2 your companions could leave the party, attack each other, attack you depending on your desisions. The same in NWN2 MotB,New Vegas,Alpha Protocol.

Had the most characters, not necessarily the largest variety. "Define variety" Because as personalities go DA and ME are a repeat of the same archetype personalities in all Bioware games since BG

Simply not true, not even by the longest of shots. The ME series alone outclasses all the games here together. ME is the largest selling "RPG" ever made. I'm not sure where you came by that. Skyrim alone outsold all 3 ME games combined. Bioware games never came close in sales with Bethesda's games(not that it means much, i find Bethesda's games terrible) And yes, New Vegas sold more than any ME game individualy.

Edited August 15, 2013 by Malekith

[Sarex]

Didn't noticed, sorry.

As for your other point's

VO adds to the immersion, there is no denying that.-Sure it adds.And longer and better writen dialogues add depth, something that doesn't happen in fully voiced games. That's why i think partialy voiced companions like in PS:T or BG2  is the best from both worlds as it allows immersion by seting the character's voice, but at the same time allow the writer to write as much as he wants

They are the most reactive to your choices, each other and the story line.Just no. In BG2 your companions could leave the party, attack each other, attack you depending on your desisions. The same in NWN2 MotB,New Vegas,Alpha Protocol.

Had the most characters, not necessarily the largest variety. "Define variety" Because as personalities go DA and ME are a repeat of the same archetype personalities in all Bioware games since BG

Simply not true, not even by the longest of shots. The ME series alone outclasses all the games here together. ME is the largest selling "RPG" ever made. I'm not sure where you came by that. Skyrim alone outsold all 3 ME games combined. Bioware games never came close in sales with Bethesda's games(not that it means much, i find Bethesda's games terrible) And yes, New Vegas sold more than any ME game individualy.

 

No problem.

 

Ok I will concede to that, you are right that there is a trade off when doing full VO. But sometimes more writing is not necessarily better, as some books have shown.

 

That is not what reactivity is. Reactivity is when, the characters simply reacts to anything you or you other characters do without any user input. Or to further elaborate, when they, for an example, comment/react to a certain situation. (I don't know how to explain this any better)

 

Maybe so but in the game it self the characters have variety. They rarely share the same personality characteristics.

 

As the characters/story are all the same throughout the whole series, I am considering them as a whole game.(But yes individually it outsold ME2 by 1 million units) As for Skyrim, it was never mentioned by me or anyone in this thread, it isn't even in the poll and most importantly I don't think it fits in to a category of the games mentioned here.

[Amberion]

I just got finished playing the citadel DLC for mass effect 3, and maybe I'm a little biased, but the companions in the mass effect series are flat out the best ever. I was laughing the whole way through at the party banter.

[Malekith]

 

Didn't noticed, sorry.

As for your other point's

VO adds to the immersion, there is no denying that.-Sure it adds.And longer and better writen dialogues add depth, something that doesn't happen in fully voiced games. That's why i think partialy voiced companions like in PS:T or BG2  is the best from both worlds as it allows immersion by seting the character's voice, but at the same time allow the writer to write as much as he wants

They are the most reactive to your choices, each other and the story line.Just no. In BG2 your companions could leave the party, attack each other, attack you depending on your desisions. The same in NWN2 MotB,New Vegas,Alpha Protocol.

Had the most characters, not necessarily the largest variety. "Define variety" Because as personalities go DA and ME are a repeat of the same archetype personalities in all Bioware games since BG

Simply not true, not even by the longest of shots. The ME series alone outclasses all the games here together. ME is the largest selling "RPG" ever made. I'm not sure where you came by that. Skyrim alone outsold all 3 ME games combined. Bioware games never came close in sales with Bethesda's games(not that it means much, i find Bethesda's games terrible) And yes, New Vegas sold more than any ME game individualy.

 

 

 

That is not what reactivity is. Reactivity is when, the characters simply reacts to anything you or you other characters do without any user input. Or to further elaborate, when they, for an example, comment/react to a certain situation. (I don't know how to explain this any better)

 

As the characters/story are all the same throughout the whole series, I am considering them as a whole game.(But yes individually it outsold ME2 by 1 million units) As for Skyrim, it was never mentioned by me or anyone in this thread, it isn't even in the poll and most importantly I don't think it fits in to a category of the games mentioned here.

 

I understand. But as i said, i think the games i mentioned do it at least in the same extent as DA/ME.

 

Ah, ok. If you count the 3 MEs as 1 game than you have a point. But it cannot be compaired that way with other games. As far as whole series go, then yes it sold the more copies from the list if you discount Fallout 3 as part of Fallout series.(and it should be out as it has no relevance to the discusion at hand.)

Edited August 15, 2013 by Malekith

[Jarmo]

Also, while I agree partly spoken is probably the best of both worlds...

 

Can anyone tell if the actual amount of lines has actually gone down with full voice acting as one might expect?

Or did the costs just go up? Because I'd say DA:O has a lot more lines from the companions than BG2 or Torment.

 

Obviously, doing changes and adding stuff in the last minute is more difficult and costly and can hurt the game.

But would anyone realistically suggest the game is actually worse, if the dialogue is all fully spoken,

than in a game with the exact same amount either partially spoken or not spoken at all.

[Sarex]

I understand. But as i said, i think the games i mentioned do it at least in the same extent as DA/ME.

 

Ah, ok. If you count the 3 MEs as 1 game than you have a point. But it cannot be compaired that way with other games. As far as whole series go, then yes it sold the more copies from the list if you discount Fallout 3 as part of Fallout series.(and it should be out as it has no relevance to the discusion at hand.)

 

Guess we agree to disagree on that.

 

You are right we did wander off a little.

 

 

Also, while I agree partly spoken is probably the best of both worlds...

 

Can anyone tell if the actual amount of lines has actually gone down with full voice acting as one might expect?

Or did the costs just go up? Because I'd say DA:O has a lot more lines from the companions than BG2 or Torment.

 

Obviously, doing changes and adding stuff in the last minute is more difficult and costly and can hurt the game.

But would anyone realistically suggest the game is actually worse, if the dialogue is all fully spoken,

than in a game with the exact same amount either partially spoken or not spoken at all.

 

It depends on the quality of the actors doing the VOs.

[Jarmo]

 

 

It depends on the quality of the actors doing the VOs.

 

 

Let's assume it's the same actor who'd do the partials.

[Malekith]

 

 

 

It depends on the quality of the actors doing the VOs.

 

 

Let's assume it's the same actor who'd do the partials.

 

Again depends of the quality. Bad VO is worse then completely silent.

But if the VO is good and as you said won't restrict the writing in any way at all, then sure why not. Full VO will be the way to go. But in a real world these conditions will never happen.

Because VO costs money. And that money would have to come from somewhere else, be it design or art ot QA or whatever. Unless you are Blizzard with their unlimited money, "it's done when it's done mentality".

Edited August 15, 2013 by Malekith

[Sarex]

Let's assume it's the same actor who'd do the partials.

 

Then sure, it's better.

[Lephys]

If we where gonna go all objective in this thread, then the poll was completely unnecessary.

- Nobody said "let's go all objective."

- I find it hard to believe that the most value in this thread/poll is simply to crown some sort of victor, rather than to collaborate in the evaluation of RPG companions of old in the interest of applying something useful from such an evaluation to as-yet-implemented companions (such as those in P:E).

- For what it's worth, I also never said subjectivity was useless. Only that it wasn't the only force in existence in the evaluation of video game companions, among other things.

 

Regarding voice acting and the other factors of companion implementation, I find it more interesting to explore what full voice acting brought to the table in a given game/implementation, and why it brought what it did, in the interest of figuring out how to better use it in the future (or whether or not to use it). I think "which is better?" is secondary in usefulness to "what's objectively useful/beneficial about each?"

[Sarex]

- Nobody said "let's go all objective."

- I find it hard to believe that the most value in this thread/poll is simply to crown some sort of victor, rather than to collaborate in the evaluation of RPG companions of old in the interest of applying something useful from such an evaluation to as-yet-implemented companions (such as those in P:E).

- For what it's worth, I also never said subjectivity was useless. Only that it wasn't the only force in existence in the evaluation of video game companions, among other things.

 

Subjectivity and objectivity are mutually exclusive. So either we are being objective or we are being subjective. This thread is entirely subjective, as it reflects our personal tastes. You can't have it both ways.

[Lephys]

Subjectivity and objectivity are mutually exclusive. So either we are being objective or we are being subjective. This thread is entirely subjective, as it reflects our personal tastes. You can't have it both ways.

Negative.

 

"I'd like the color of stop signs better if they were blue." -- Subjective value of the color of a stop sign.

 

"The red of a stop sign provides great contrast with the typical surroundings of a stop sign, so that it is more easily noticed and can better do its job." -- Objective value of the color of a stop sign.

 

Both are co-existing peacefully. So, the quality (or lack thereof) of a stop sign's color is BOTH subjective AND objective. If they were mutually exclusive, it could only be one or the other.

 

In the case of this thread, "best" applies equally to both subjective ratings of companion properties AND objective ones.

 

If you just want to know what people like about companions, for kicks, you don't ask "what makes them good?"

 

If it was purely subjective, then the answer would be "Everything." The fact that they're literally useless in combat, even though you need combat effectiveness to make it through the game? Good. The fact that they're a talking belt? Totally good. The fact that they're a bad companion? You know what, since it's subjective, I'm gonna go with good, and it's correct, because subjectivity.

 

So, yes, dropping "this is all just subjective anyway" in a discussion in which people have already proposed objective evaluations is like saying "that's great, but you're actually wrong and what you've pointed out is actually quite useless." It'd be like telling someone that a stop sign's ability to be seen actually has no bearing on the usefulness of a stop sign, but that hearing their opinion on the matter was lovely. It's just silly, to be honest.

 

And that's all I'm going to say on the matter, since it's really not that complicated, and I'll not have people provoke clarification after clarification, then accuse me of somehow making a big deal out of this and derailing a thread when all I did was state a simple notion, then get antagonized about it. I wasn't judging anyone or criticizing anyone. I was quite simply pointing the existence of objective value in such a discussion as this one.

[Christliar]

 

Subjectivity and objectivity are mutually exclusive. So either we are being objective or we are being subjective. This thread is entirely subjective, as it reflects our personal tastes. You can't have it both ways.

Negative.

 

"I'd like the color of stop signs better if they were blue." -- Subjective value of the color of a stop sign.

 

"The red of a stop sign provides great contrast with the typical surroundings of a stop sign, so that it is more easily noticed and can better do its job." -- Objective value of the color of a stop sign.

 

Both are co-existing peacefully. So, the quality (or lack thereof) of a stop sign's color is BOTH subjective AND objective. If they were mutually exclusive, it could only be one or the other.

 

In the case of this thread, "best" applies equally to both subjective ratings of companion properties AND objective ones.

 

If you just want to know what people like about companions, for kicks, you don't ask "what makes them good?"

 

If it was purely subjective, then the answer would be "Everything." The fact that they're literally useless in combat, even though you need combat effectiveness to make it through the game? Good. The fact that they're a talking belt? Totally good. The fact that they're a bad companion? You know what, since it's subjective, I'm gonna go with good, and it's correct, because subjectivity.

 

So, yes, dropping "this is all just subjective anyway" in a discussion in which people have already proposed objective evaluations is like saying "that's great, but you're actually wrong and what you've pointed out is actually quite useless." It'd be like telling someone that a stop sign's ability to be seen actually has no bearing on the usefulness of a stop sign, but that hearing their opinion on the matter was lovely. It's just silly, to be honest.

 

And that's all I'm going to say on the matter, since it's really not that complicated, and I'll not have people provoke clarification after clarification, then accuse me of somehow making a big deal out of this and derailing a thread when all I did was state a simple notion, then get antagonized about it. I wasn't judging anyone or criticizing anyone. I was quite simply pointing the existence of objective value in such a discussion as this one.

 

I like the way you think. Yes, even in the arts there can be objectivity; I feel that people who say "it's all subjective" just can't express themselves fluently enough to actually present any valid arguments. It also defeats the whole purpose of a discussion and turns it into, like you said, a communal sharing of opinions.

 

To add something on-topic which I forgot to mention last time:

The companions should have some role or some significance to the overarching narrative. They should have a purpose beyond just existing to act as combat puppets and be disconnected from the story. Torment is absolutely marvelous in this regard, everyone there had a significance in the story. Kaelyn and Gann in MotB are nice examples too. Kaelyn's Crusade was ultimately tied to your success in retrieving your soul and Gann's dream walking is what helps you get the Mask. In MotB this connectivity is striking and extremely noticable, because the others (Safiya, Okku and One-of-Many) serve no purpose beyond filling party slots, not that they weren't interesting characters mind you, they just weren't important and in the end were overshadowed. Kreia and Visas in KotOR2 shine as well.

Edited August 16, 2013 by Christliar

[Bartimaeus]

I will say "Neverwinter Nights" had "good" companions, and Torment had the best. But really, Neverwinter Nights only gets good because of Mask of the Betrayer - okay, maybe the OC a little, too - but actually, if it was on its own, it would make it hard to vote between it and Torment.

[Co0n]

Definetly Baldurs Gate!

Those characters were so much fun.

Their interaction with the world, their stories, their behaviour - everything.

The characters were just so good, that the player really cared for them.

[Sarex]

Negative.

"I'd like the color of stop signs better if they were blue." -- Subjective value of the color of a stop sign.

 

"The red of a stop sign provides great contrast with the typical surroundings of a stop sign, so that it is more easily noticed and can better do its job." -- Objective value of the color of a stop sign.

 

Both are co-existing peacefully. So, the quality (or lack thereof) of a stop sign's color is BOTH subjective AND objective. If they were mutually exclusive, it could only be one or the other.

 

In the case of this thread, "best" applies equally to both subjective ratings of companion properties AND objective ones.

 

If you just want to know what people like about companions, for kicks, you don't ask "what makes them good?"

 

If it was purely subjective, then the answer would be "Everything." The fact that they're literally useless in combat, even though you need combat effectiveness to make it through the game? Good. The fact that they're a talking belt? Totally good. The fact that they're a bad companion? You know what, since it's subjective, I'm gonna go with good, and it's correct, because subjectivity.

 

So, yes, dropping "this is all just subjective anyway" in a discussion in which people have already proposed objective evaluations is like saying "that's great, but you're actually wrong and what you've pointed out is actually quite useless." It'd be like telling someone that a stop sign's ability to be seen actually has no bearing on the usefulness of a stop sign, but that hearing their opinion on the matter was lovely. It's just silly, to be honest.

 

And that's all I'm going to say on the matter, since it's really not that complicated, and I'll not have people provoke clarification after clarification, then accuse me of somehow making a big deal out of this and derailing a thread when all I did was state a simple notion, then get antagonized about it. I wasn't judging anyone or criticizing anyone. I was quite simply pointing the existence of objective value in such a discussion as this one.

 

 

I see that you don't know what subjectivity and objectivity mean. While a subjective and objective opinion can both be true, that doesn't mean that a person can be both subjective and objective on a matter, that is an oxymoron.

[JFSOCC]

I feel that people who say "it's all subjective" just can't express themselves fluently enough to actually present any valid arguments.

This. There seems to be this idea going around that if someone states something as an opinion that it cannot be wrong or challenged.

And that is nonsense.

Yes many things are subjective, especially in art, but that doesn't mean that there is no objectivity involved in assessing the skill of an artist. Technique and taste are both part of art, Technique is something you could objectively judge whereas taste is more subjective.

[jethro]

As the characters/story are all the same throughout the whole series, I am considering them as a whole game.(But yes individually it outsold ME2 by 1 million units)

 

So, because x Mio. people bought ME1 and roughly the same x Mio. people then bought the followups ME2 and ME3 you count them as 3*x Mio. people? If I understand you correctly, it is neither subjective or objective, it is simply wrong.

 

 

that doesn't mean that a person can be both subjective and objective on a matter, that is an oxymoron.

 

No, but a person can bring forth objective and subjective arguments on a matter, even in the same sentence. And since objectivity is really really hard to achieve on most subjects (maybe even all subjects expect mathematics and physics) a person is almost always subjective on a matter, but often has objective facts included.

Edited August 16, 2013 by jethro