Common pitfalls of CRPG games to avoid

[Silent Winter]

^^Well, it'd be entirely self-contradictory.  There'd need to be no romance options, while at the same time every companion would be romancable.  There'd be 6 stats but also 10 and 4.

It'd be a class-based classless system.

There'd be a large number of wilderness areas chock-full of encounters whilst at the same time very open and calming to explore.

You'd need to have your characters rest, eat, drink and repair their armour in a highly micromanagement way that also is abstracted to not need any management.

There'd be a limited unlimited inventory based on slots and size and weight.

Also the stronghold would be an entirely optional essential part of the main story.

 

sounds great

[Eurhetemec]

The biggest pitfall to avoid when emulating BG2/IWD/PST is, I think, the "blah blah blah, just give me the quest!" effect.

 

Let's be clear - I'm a big reader. I read fast, and I read a lot, and I read complex stuff. That's not to boast, just to say where I'm coming from. Yet even I find, in a lot of older CRPGs (including stuff as recent as DA:O), is that very often, NPCs like to spew several paragraphs of information, that you don't really care about, because you don't know why you care about it, before they tell you why you should actually care.

This is terrible. Not only does it start to bore even quite patient people (not everyone, but I think most intelligent people have a limited tolerance for tons of info or blather they didn't ask for), but it will also get people to stop reading the interesting and important text, because they keep having to go through stuff before they know why they care.

 

There is a solution, thankfully, which I think was employed as early as PS:T (though it did have a bit of this, too):

 

Have NPCs succinctly and fairly quickly tell the player what it is they want the player to do (with a minimum of background), and THEN offer the player the opportunity to explore this background, if they wish, and in the level of detail that they wish. This is how real transactions, negotiations, hirings and so on work - you say upfront want you want, THEN you discuss the details, and the whys and wherefores, and so on.

But all too often in CRPGs, even well-respected ones, this is reversed - the NPC spews forth tons of text (or speech - DA:O does this quite a number of times with speech), which you have to either read through, sit through, or click through (with the latter often becoming more appealing as time goes on!), before they really get to what they want. This just isn't how life works unless you are an essentially powerless person being lead before a powerful individual who is also an incompetent negotiatior and loves the sound of his own voice.

 

So that would be the primary pitfall I would personally hope that PoEterntiy will avoid. It's bad for everyone involved - for the writers, whose good work often gets clicked through or ignored, and for the players, who get bored or have to memorize information without understanding why it's valuable, and then make a decision, and may be lured into the unfortunate habit of clicking through stuff. Even an option to say interrupt blathering NPCs with "Get to the point..." would be nice (to be fair to DA:O, it does occasionally provide this, but almost never when you actually want it!).

None of this is to say I don't want complex info and deep background detail in conversations - I do! But I want the NPCs to state what they want and why I should care straight away, and then get to that sort of thing.

 

The second pitfall I'd point out with games with companions who sometimes have new stuff to say and so on is that it can be very difficult to tell when they have new dialogue, new interactions and so on, unless you keep going through all the companions and talking to them to see if they do, which is tedious AND feels weird. So I hope that if a companion has something new to say, we get some kind of subtle indicator of that. Not a giant "TALK TO ME!" sign, but have them talk to us and bring something up, or say things to other party members that suggests that something is on their mind, or otherwise act in a way that suggests that they might have something worth talking about (if that's too much work, a little icon would be fine, maybe on their portrait or inventory screen or something - just nothing flashing or glowing or big!).

[rjshae]

This goes bit OT, but just for the giggles i would love to see RPG game that would be based and develobed by direct forum suggestions. Also input to the content would be in correlation to amount of money that backer would "invest". i just wonder how many pitfalls that abominatio would avoid and what kind of gameplay experience it would give in the end.

 

*Shudder*

 

[mur'phon]

Luckily for me, Eternity seems to avoid many of my pet peeves. Useless builds (so I end up using a guide), limited inventory, "mandatory" classes that you kinda have to have in your party etc.
The biggest one however, and the one I think Eternity is one of very few games to even try to deal with is the issue of having magic be presented as something very powerful, something to be feared, and then lets non-magic characters eat 10 fireballs for breakfast before cutting the mage in two. Nothing breaks suspension of disbelief (for me) more than having non-magic characters be equal to mages (which also leads me to exclusively play as mages in those games to lessen the pain). Making all characters basically mages solves this neatly, everyone is a mage (or supernatural monster), thus everyone can provide a challenge to my party of spellslingers without it feeling wrong.
 

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

It seems to me that more often than not, the PC is shoe-horned into being a passive protagonist. It would be nice to be more proactive.

[Silent Winter]

Have NPCs succinctly and fairly quickly tell the player what it is they want the player to do (with a minimum of background), and THEN offer the player the opportunity to explore this background, if they wish, and in the level of detail that they wish. This is how real transactions, negotiations, hirings and so on work - you say upfront want you want, THEN you discuss the details, and the whys and wherefores, and so on.

But all too often in CRPGs, even well-respected ones, this is reversed

I largely agree with your point about this - I'd suggest that the ocassional rambling NPC who doesn't get to the point is a good thing (almost like a reward to get the quest after listening to them when you might not have known there was a quest and told them to go away) and is also realistic in moderation.  But in general it'd be nice to get "Er, hi...you look tough.  I need someone to rid my village of vampires" -> choices to "I'll go right away" "tell me more" or "no thanks, maybe later" (as a basic example).

 

The second pitfall I'd point out with games with companions who sometimes have new stuff to say and so on is that it can be very difficult to tell when they have new dialogue, new interactions and so on, unless you keep going through all the companions and talking to them to see if they do, which is tedious AND feels weird. So I hope that if a companion has something new to say, we get some kind of subtle indicator of that. Not a giant "TALK TO ME!" sign, but have them talk to us and bring something up, or say things to other party members that suggests that something is on their mind, or otherwise act in a way that suggests that they might have something worth talking about (if that's too much work, a little icon would be fine, maybe on their portrait or inventory screen or something - just nothing flashing or glowing or big!).

 

Yes - something (preferably in-game actions but failing that, portrait indicator) would be good.  I hate having to click through the same conversations in NWN2 again and again, only to find there's nothing new to say.  Never knowing which quest completion or other condition has triggered something new.

(This assumes we're going to have player initiated banters, but I don't see why not).

[AGX-17]

This goes bit OT, but just for the giggles i would love to see RPG game that would be based and develobed by direct forum suggestions. Also input to the content would be in correlation to amount of money that backer would "invest". i just wonder how many pitfalls that abominatio would avoid and what kind of gameplay experience it would give in the end.

Tali's Sweat Simulation 2014. Now with Olfacto-vision support! You memorized the fan-hypothesized chemical structure of her body odor, but now experience it for yourself!*

 

*Developer not responsible for any injuries, illnesses or deaths incurred due to Olfacto-vision technology. See software license for details.

Edited February 14, 2014 by AGX-17

[Lephys]

Tali's Sweat Simulation 2014. Now with Olfacto-vision support! You memorized the fan-hypothesized chemical structure of her body odor, but now experience it for yourself!*

 

*Developer not responsible for any injuries, illnesses or deaths incurred due to Olfacto-vision technology. See software license for details.

Everyone knows Quarians don't sweat! Their suit environments are kept in a constant homeostasis. GAH, u_u...

 

[Suburban-Fox]

...just going to add my list of things-to-avoid...

 

1) - it's all about combat, and everything else is negligable; Rogues aren't locksmiths/trapsmiths anymore, but are simply "melee DPS", while wizards have no spells that don't have a use in combat.

 

2) Regenerating health; this takes a lot of the feeling of danger out of the adventure, as well as making traps worthless. Also, no petrification, ability draining effects, or any lasting damage effects like that...there is only physical damage that gets insta-healed when you go and make a cup of tea.

 

3) Super-fast advancement; Baldur's Gate took its time to advance you, and you could only reach about level 8. This made level 8 feel like a major achievement, unlike in most modern RPGs, where it's just one of many levels you trawl through to reach level super-awesome.

 

4) Heroes who become superheroes; I don't know how anyone else feels about this, but I much prefer the thought that you start off being a fairly normal person who isn't overly special in any way, and becomes a hero by making clever use of the resources he has. In other words, I'd rather start as Average Joe and strive to be Batman, than start as Superman and strive to be EvenMoreSuperman.

[Madzookeeper]

 

 

You misunderstand me. These terms have such a high value now that no game can ever come close to attaining what players want. Alpha Protocol had way more choice than The Witcher 2 did, but nobody cares about AP because TW2 locks you out of half the game.

 

Ah, ok - never played AP (nor the WItcher 2) but wasn't the choice there a good thing?  Didn't know people were bashing it.

 

Being forced to replay the game if you want the full story is never a good thing.

 

but in real life we NEVER get the full story. and... you are getting the full story, the story you helped create. if you decide you want to go with different decisions, you aren't getting another side of the same story, it's a different story all together because your actions are different, therefore the following chain of actions is different. so... i really don't see what you're getting at here. having a second storyline that you can follow (or third or fourth, depending on the game, F:NV comes to mind here) ups replay value for one thing, but it doesn't mean you can't be satisfied with what you've done. for a lot of people one play through is enough, and they never get that niggling little question of what might have been if i'd just done this instead. but for those of us that do, having an entirely different path open up that may or may not be dealing with the same situation (odds are it will be) is quite enticing.

 

i think in a way you've created a false picture of what branching story is. you're claiming that the only way to get a "the" full story is to play through all possible outcomes. but it's not even the same story when you do that, so... i'm really not seeing that.

[Bryy]

 

 

 

You misunderstand me. These terms have such a high value now that no game can ever come close to attaining what players want. Alpha Protocol had way more choice than The Witcher 2 did, but nobody cares about AP because TW2 locks you out of half the game.

 

Ah, ok - never played AP (nor the WItcher 2) but wasn't the choice there a good thing?  Didn't know people were bashing it.

 

Being forced to replay the game if you want the full story is never a good thing.

 

but in real life we NEVER get the full story. and... you are getting the full story, the story you helped create. if you decide you want to go with different decisions, you aren't getting another side of the same story, it's a different story all together because your actions are different, therefore the following chain of actions is different. so... i really don't see what you're getting at here. having a second storyline that you can follow (or third or fourth, depending on the game, F:NV comes to mind here) ups replay value for one thing, but it doesn't mean you can't be satisfied with what you've done. for a lot of people one play through is enough, and they never get that niggling little question of what might have been if i'd just done this instead. but for those of us that do, having an entirely different path open up that may or may not be dealing with the same situation (odds are it will be) is quite enticing.

 

i think in a way you've created a false picture of what branching story is. you're claiming that the only way to get a "the" full story is to play through all possible outcomes. but it's not even the same story when you do that, so... i'm really not seeing that.

 

... video games are not real life, though. And New Vegas is not an example of Branching Story, since you can do anything at any time. You can play both the Legion and the Rangers. Nothing locks in New Vegas. Kill House or let House live, it doesn't change anything.

 

I'm not saying side quests or different epilogues or different lines of dialogue are Branching Story. Just the big things. Plot is not Story.

Edited March 12, 2014 by Bryy

[Madzookeeper]

could you give an example of what you mean, and why it constitutes that then?

[BrainMuncher]

Something to avoid, is too many samey combat encounters.

 

A good example is the game torchlight (the first one, I haven't played the second one so can't comment). I realise it's a different genre but it stands out more there since combat is all there is. The entire game, with the exception of a few boss encounters, was small to medium sized rooms, connected with small to medium sized corridors, filled with small to medium sized groups of enemies. The enemies were always roughly around your level, getting more powerful at the same rate as you, so each new area felt very similar to the last just with different visuals.

 

Some of the IE games suffered from this to a certain extent, but not nearly as bad, there was a pretty good amount of variation. Many encounters would be against groups of 6-10 enemies, maybe goblins at first, mostly melee with a couple archers and maybe a shaman. Then a bit later maybe orcs or something with a similar composition. Basically the same fight just with larger HP and damage numbers.

 

Ideally I think there should be all manner of encounters which vary by a) the size of the battlefield, b) the strength and number of enemies, and c) the length of the battle:

- short battle on huge battlefield with massive numbers of weak enemies

- short battle in medium room with medium number of medium strength enemies

- very lengthy battle in large room with small groups of weak enemies

- medium length battle in small room with single powerful enemies

- short battle in medium room with large number of powerful enemies

- etc.

 

One of the most memorable fights from BG2 for me was in ToB, in a cave somewhere (I think it was this one), I got attacked by some fairly run-of-the-mill guys. I started killing them, and everything seemed status quo, but then I realised there's more of them, and they just kept coming. More and more threw themselves at me, my party started to get split up, and they kept coming, seemingly endlessly. I remember really having to scrape the bottom of the barrel and use everything at my disposal to get to the end. That's not to say that it was more difficult, just that it was unexpected and I had to make do with what might have been imperfect tools, after many spells were used up.

It was a long time ago so I can't remember much detail but I think they were mostly just basic melee enemies. So it wasn't memorable because of unique interesting monsters. What made it memorable was the length of the battle. The vast majority of battles in these games only end up lasting a few rounds, regardless of the number and strength of the enemies. Just try to think of the last time a cloud or fog spell ran out before the battle was over, almost never.

 

So that battle really stood out for me because the length of it was in stark contrast to most of the rest of the game. Dragon battles tend to stand out because they are against one really strong enemy, which is also pretty rare. They also tend to last longer than usual.

 

Between the size of the battlefield, the strength and number of enemies, and the length of the battle, there are many variations to be had, use as many as possible! Don't be afraid to put in what seem to be absurd fights, like your high level party getting attacked by a single rat in the woods. Or maybe they get attacked by 1000 rats all at once, sure they all die in one hit, but death by 1000 cuts could be real, especially if you get surrounded and can't move. It doesn't always have to be a group of 6-10 epic dire rats appropriate for your level.

[600lbpanther]

I agree with Eurhetemec's suggestion that quests should start out with minimal information and branch out.

• My suggestion on quests is that they also have fun quests like puzzles or mazes (feel free to add your variation) to break up "sneak in" or "kill this" quests.
• To me:  A lot of quests are like a lot of posts in a forum...walls of text that I sometimes read and if I do I will skim on through.

 Brainmuncher has a great idea about diversity and unexpectedness in combat.

• I hope adversaries have their own life and culture that could cause surprise clashes not only between the player but between NPCs as well.
• The opposite of this is to have NPCs standing around in a forest or cave waiting for you, and only you, to come within 10 feet of them.

[Sarex]

It seems to me that more often than not, the PC is shoe-horned into being a passive protagonist. It would be nice to be more proactive.

 

http://www.cracked.com/video_18662_the-horrifying-secret-the-matrix-reveals-about-humanity.html

[Lephys]

@Brainmuncher:

 

That makes me think of another common pitfall:

 

Enemies that always under-estimate you.

 

"What, this group of six killed ALL the guards outside our entire bandit hideout? Send more nameless guards to charge recklessly at them!"

 

Honestly, it'd be refreshing to sometimes see people OVER-estimate my party. But, at the very least, it'd be nice to see people say "Wow, you killed all my guards, and don't seem to be in very bad shape afterwards? Alright remaining croneys... EVASIVE MANEUVERS!", instead of just "MOAR AGGRESSION! SURELY WE'LL KILL THEM WITH EASE!"

[Frenzy-kun]

To answer the topic:

I really hate that the enviroments are not interactuable. I mean. you replace the graphics by grey blocks and you cannot really know in which place you are. All is the same. I really miss some interactions with the enviroment. It's not all about battling, looting, chatting, and making missions about battling, looting or chatting.

 

To be able to interact with the bushes and put fire on them /with consequences. To be able to interact with the water, cross rivers, swim or dive, being pushed by the currents. Hazards and traps on contact like poisonous flowers, brambles, muddy floors. Walls or rocks that can be wiped with strong spells. gigant spider eggs that releases spiders if something breaks them. Heat, cold and other weather effects.

 

And about the point 2: the looting.

Quantity (and quality) of the loot is always good. Saying that less to choose is better is wrong. But I can understand that there is something wrongwith the feeling of entering in your first dungeon and find out the bastard sword +5, +100 against the final boss and inmunity agains -THAT- spell.

 

There are several issues here. First, the game balance, where getting stronger is needed for a correct game progression, and if you are supposed to be in epic level, it's normal that you HAVE to have high level weapons. Now, there is another point where people forgets that yeah, you can find a superb sword in one dungeon, much better than the one you were saving money for. But remember. If the player doesn't use sword, he will still need something. And if the player gets a different route, he won't have that sword. He might find a bow in the other route, and then have the funds to purchase the sword in the shop before going for the original route. Not everybody plays the same.

 

And also, remember that choice is important. You might have -the sword-, but it will be much funnier if you have several swords to suit your game style. One of the worst things in Baldur's gate 2 is that at the end, you have the weapon. The crom faeyr is it, and it's so good that you need your cleric with proficiency in hammers yes or yes. No clubs, no maces, maybe flails for the second hand, but you MUST have the crom. Same for carsomyr and paladins. Have a paladin? THSword, sorry. Yeah, this shield looks super cool, but better you give it to your priest and stick with that sword. And the issue here is exactly the lack of alternatives.

 

The real issue here is that what is supposed to be unique is not. The magic weapons should be for certain  something special. But to make it a worthy reward, you don't need to reduce the quantity, but the availability. If magic weapons didn't appear in the very first drawer you open in the game, then it will be something valuable, even if there are more. The best items are the ones that requires some quest or effort. The vorpal sword in BG2 has charisma. Carsomyr is better, but seems cheaper, just because it is given to you. The equalizer is the same. You have that gem all over the game until you find the blade, and now... it's a not worthy sword!

 

The solution is to make magic weapons hard to get. And all of them should have the same combat value. And one character, even a thief with its limited weapon pool should be able to have a choice. All those weapons should be hard to find. By needing to reforge them, by being in a secondary quest, by sacrificing something else, by paying really prohibitive prices.

 

In baldur's gate 2 we have several tiers of weapons:

 

-Normal weapons

-Magic weapons (+1, +2, +3)

-Cool magic weapons (magic weapons with secondary effects)

-Legendary weapons (carsomyr, crom faeyr...)

-Upgraded weapons (TOB)

 

The real issue here is:

- Normal weapons are outdated, since you already begin in the paragon tier.

- Magic weapons are so easy to find, and easily outdated by cool weapons.

- Cool weapons are easily outdated when legendary weapons appears.

 

My proposal would be, appart to make them quite unique, removing the magic weapon tier by joining it to the normal weapons, making them to just represent the progression of the game (so a +1, +2 or +3 weapons are just better quality weapons, but not magical). The magical weapons should be the "cool ones", and they should all be even, so if you find two magic swords it will be a matter of preferences to choose one or the other, not a matter of outdating. Then leave the legendary -and- upgrades to the last quarter of the game, being sure that there is enough weapons for the players to choose, trying to avoid the "unique" weapon.

 

No need to remove anything. Just a proper distribution, using the magic weapons as a reward for hard task, not as something to be sold in the next shop. Everything that doesn't suit this should be stripped of any uniqueness (like the +1, +2 and +3 weapons) making them to look average. To balance, you can have a "rusted" magic weapon that is only +1 with a special feature, and then later in the game you can find something to fix it back and it would become a +3. Because after all, the damage and accuracy will depend more on the quality of the blade more than the magic inside. +3 weapons are very well forged weapons, and +0 something of bad quality made for poor people. And then the magic comes when you really have magic. Fire damage, protection agains psychic, extra damage to dragons. That's magic.

[Allvaldr]

Re: looting. I want variety of course, it should be as viable to be an axe-wielder as to be a sword-wielder for example. But, even more than a lack of variety I have the loot wh**ing in many modern games. I can't stand the type of games that advertise that you can get "5 million randomly generated magic items" when basically it's just: Kill first enemy, start with sword+1. Kill second enemy, get sword+1 +paralysis. Kill third enemy: get sword +2 +fire. I loved BG I and liked BG II. Even if it didn't remain top-tier for the entire game, Lilarcor remained a valid item for probably half the game for example. That's the kind of loot progression I enjoy & prefer.

[Randomthom]

For me, the main thing to avoid is screwing the squishy classes with forced dialogue/positioning.

 

e.g. my Mage PC walks into a room and triggers a cut-scene where there is a chat between the big bad's dragon (not necessarily a literal dragon) and my PC. It concludes with us having to fight. Now I find that, due to pre-determined programming, my mage is stood smack-bang in front of the big orc/troll/blackguard and my front-line fighters are behind my PC.

 

NWN 1 & 2 were the worst for this.

 

This also happened despite clever sneaking with stealthy characters. NWN2 would even let you sneak with a party NPC e.g. Neela and when you walked somewhere that triggered a conversation your PC and Neela would switch locations, wherever they were stood.

 

I don't want in-game triggers to ruin me tactically.

[Ffordesoon]

I don't know how "common" this is, but I would definitely call it a pitfall: trapping us in a place where we have to fight a monster who can only be hurt by a certain weapon we probably don't have and may not specialize in even if we do have it, and then giving that monster regenerating health.

 

I've been fighting Kagour (sp?) on the Werewolf Island in Tales Of The Sword Coast, and frankly, he is impossible for my party to beat even with the Sword Of Balduran and using cheesy kiting tactics. Which wouldn't be so bad, if I had any other options than to fight him. But I'm stuck on the island, and the only way to move the story along is to fight a character I straight-up cannot defeat. At this point, I'm just going to give up and edit his entry in Shadowkeeper until I can beat the motherf***er.

 

Does that bother you, Baldur's Gate grognards? It sure bothers me. I don't want to cheat, and I wouldn't, but the game cheated me first.

[Ffordesoon]

Addendum to previous: Turned out I had a spare Wand Of Paralyzation, thank Christ. Still, it was a lame situation to be in.

[Ffordesoon]

Apologies for triple-posting, but:

 

If you (Obsidian) are going to give us big cities with multiple districts to run around in with lots and lots and lots of quests, in the quests that involve finding a person and/or going back to a questgiver, will you please at least tell us which region of the city we're supposed to be searcihing in?

 

Now, granted, this is less of a fix than "Don't make architecture that blurs together," but I understand that maintaining the level of detail a game like PoE requires necessitates some reuse of assets and the like. I would rather see the same house interior reused many times than have less houses to go into, for example.

 

But, well... Let me explain. I'm wandering through the eponymous city in BG1 right now, and it's very easy to get lost in it - which is a good thing overall, even if I'm not always lost for the right reasons. However, the quest journal, which has until this point been sufficiently helpful, now tells me nine times out of ten in the descriptions that the person I want to find is "in Baldur's Gate." Baldur's Gate has nine districts, each packed with virtually identical houses that are not labeled as anything on my map or in the world, many of which are the only place I can find the NPCs I need to find. Telling me to look for someone "in Baldur's Gate" is like telling me to look for someone "in New York." Except worse, ecause there isn't a phone book, there aren't streets with names, and there aren't any signs telling me where the hell I am. It is, in other words, a mite irritating.

 

I'm all for having to pay attention to the gameworld, but this is just bulls**t.

[DPB]

For me, the main thing to avoid is screwing the squishy classes with forced dialogue/positioning.

 

e.g. my Mage PC walks into a room and triggers a cut-scene where there is a chat between the big bad's dragon (not necessarily a literal dragon) and my PC. It concludes with us having to fight. Now I find that, due to pre-determined programming, my mage is stood smack-bang in front of the big orc/troll/blackguard and my front-line fighters are behind my PC.

 

NWN 1 & 2 were the worst for this.

 

This also happened despite clever sneaking with stealthy characters. NWN2 would even let you sneak with a party NPC e.g. Neela and when you walked somewhere that triggered a conversation your PC and Neela would switch locations, wherever they were stood.

 

I don't want in-game triggers to ruin me tactically.

I second this, I've been replaying IWD2 recently and I've been surprised just how much it takes control away from the player. It's not such an issue in a game where you don't have designated leader, but it's still annoying ruining your preparation and making you walk straight into ambushes.

 

There's one particularly stupid encounter where your party is forced into a cutscene where they walk towards a lich hurling several spells at a cleric, only to stand around gormlessly watching the cleric die, when they could have easily stepped in to help him. I think there was another encounter where you weren't given control back until a group of enemies had closed on your position, and the final battle forced your party to walk into a specific place too.

 

I don't like having control taken away from me unless there's a valid reason, like walking into a trap or being teleported away somwhere.

[Frenzy-kun]

Apologies for triple-posting, but:

 

If you (Obsidian) are going to give us big cities with multiple districts to run around in with lots and lots and lots of quests, in the quests that involve finding a person and/or going back to a questgiver, will you please at least tell us which region of the city we're supposed to be searcihing in?

 

Now, granted, this is less of a fix than "Don't make architecture that blurs together," but I understand that maintaining the level of detail a game like PoE requires necessitates some reuse of assets and the like. I would rather see the same house interior reused many times than have less houses to go into, for example.

 

But, well... Let me explain. I'm wandering through the eponymous city in BG1 right now, and it's very easy to get lost in it - which is a good thing overall, even if I'm not always lost for the right reasons. However, the quest journal, which has until this point been sufficiently helpful, now tells me nine times out of ten in the descriptions that the person I want to find is "in Baldur's Gate." Baldur's Gate has nine districts, each packed with virtually identical houses that are not labeled as anything on my map or in the world, many of which are the only place I can find the NPCs I need to find. Telling me to look for someone "in Baldur's Gate" is like telling me to look for someone "in New York." Except worse, ecause there isn't a phone book, there aren't streets with names, and there aren't any signs telling me where the hell I am. It is, in other words, a mite irritating.

 

I'm all for having to pay attention to the gameworld, but this is just bulls**t.

I totally agree with this. There is a huge  difference between making a quest about finding someone, with the correct clues, than having to find someone to make the quest.

Edited March 24, 2014 by Frenzy-kun

[meowschwitz]

I really hope they give companions real reasons for following you around, besides you being the protagonist. Also it'd be great if they actually have roles and activities that they do when they aren't following you. Even if it's as simple as them being a mercenary, that's fine, you're paying them to follow you.