Stretch goal discussion!

[Archaven]

So Tempest's Turn is the same island as Dunnage? It's just a lodge or some kind of tavern? They mentioned trading, game of chance and poetry readings. Probably there's a merchant and ans for game of chance.. there's some mini-games over here? Mini-card games ala Witcher 3 Gwent? This sounds like a neat idea. Also regarding Drowned barrows, they mentioned dungeons? I certainly not expecting a 15 level dungeons here but 3-4 levels would be really great.

[Madscientist]

regarding sidekicks: I would have preferred another companion, but I think they are OK.

Lets look at the IE games: In BG1 the other party members were even less than the sidekicks of PoE2. They had their own image and voice, but they did not do anything except saying a typical sentence every once in a while. I played BG1 with a completely self made party and I did not feel I miss much.

In BG2 it was better, but only Imoen and Yoshimo were really part of the story. All others, well they askes you to do a quest and then they followed you, I don´t know why. If sidekick means they are as party members of BG2, thats fine with me.

PST had great companions, but comparing PST and PoE would be a bit unfair.

 

I will play with the "real" companions in my party, but I would rather have a sidekick in my party (assuming they are like BG2 chars) than a self made char.

[AndreaColombo]

I would rather have a sidekick in my party (assuming they are like BG2 chars) than a self made char.

 

I'd say that depends on their stats. The whole point of self-made characters is min-maxing and optimizing. Sidekicks are more like a poor man's companions; they're companions but not really. I'm lukewarm at best toward them, as one full-fledged companion beats four sidekicks any time of day and night in my book. If story companions don't suit my need, I go for self-made characters to optimize. Sidekicks have neither the optimization perk of self-made characters, nor the depth of story companions.

[LuccA]

I admire Obsidian's will to please every type of player. With the sidekicks, we'll have options for everyone:

 

1- Hired adventurers for people who like to make their entire party IwD style and don't care about the lack of interaction or like to imagine their personalities;

2- Companions if you like characters full of life and reactive to the story;

3- Sidekicks if you think hired-adventurers are too lifeless, but also don't wanna worry too much about relationship "mini-games" or if you really wanted that dwarf or pale elf companion.

 

Now, although the will is admirable, sometimes the result of trying to please everyone is not, =/. It worries me that this kind of approach generates a frankensteinish game, where these features are all stitched up together, but don't form an organic whole. If we are gonna have all three options, they should feel natural somehow.

 

Why does this sidekick doesn't speak to me like Edér or Aloth do? I know it might be silly, but I would prefer an answer like: "because he doesn't speak the common tongue or had his tongue cut out" or "because he is really stoic or shy" than just "oh, because mecanically he is not a companion, but a sideckick, as the developers didn't have the time or resources to do more companions, that's why".

 

I don't know, just don't make the sidekicks look like they were stitched up to the game unnaturally, like PoE1's stronghold felt in the beggining, or the backer NPC's feel until today. Make them have a reason of existing other than "because it was a strecth goal".

[tinysalamander]

Why does this sidekick doesn't speak to me like Edér or Aloth do? I know it might be silly, but I would prefer an answer like: "because he doesn't speak the common tongue or had his tongue cut out" or "because he is really stoic or shy" than just "oh, because mecanically he is not a companion, but a sideckick, as the developers didn't have the time or resources to do more companions, that's why".

 

I do it in my head with hired companions. Although it works somewhat better if I’m writing it down as I play, kind of like a diary.

[Sedrefilos]

And unless things change dramatically the last few days, this is gonna be the last stretch goal imo. And it might not be reached even. It's funny how we all discuss stretch goals as though they're already given game features

[Blarghagh]

Man I wish PoE 1 had a priest sidekick. Adventurers feel fake and dull but that leaves me with maining a priest or dealing with Durance again.

[JerekKruger]

And unless things change dramatically the last few days, this is gonna be the last stretch goal imo. And it might not be reached even. It's funny how we all discuss stretch goals as though they're already given game features

 

Well one thing is going to change in the next few days: I'm going to back Deadfire. Sadly I probably won't be backing it for hundreds of thousands of dollars so you might still be right with the rest of your statement

[rheingold]

Not a fan of sidekicks, I'd rather they did things properly than half assed... either add more companions in or work on the existing ones more, but giving out half a companion is a bit dodgy...

[Varana]

I like the idea.

In PoE1, I used adventurers for a while in the beginning of the game as placeholders until I got to the actual companions. To have a variety of characters available that can fill a specific role but also have some kind of personality to them, is even better. They're basically BG1 level companions (or BG2 for some of the lesser ones), and I'm certainly not going to complain about that. The full companions don't use all options that the game has to offer, and even less so if you don't like one of them (Durance!). I'd take a less talky sidekick over a mute chess piece every time.

Sure, a self-created adventurer is better for min-maxing, but that's not really necessary for me.

[Chairchucker]

BG2 Companions (but not quite because slightly less interaction): Aerie, Anomen, Cernd, Edwin, Imoen, Jaheira, Jan, Keldorn, Korgan, Mazzy, Nalia, Viconia. (Characters who EITHER have a quest after you get them or you can romance.)

BG2 sidekicks: Haer'Dalis, Minsc, Yoshimo

 

Some people like Minsc despite him not having 'companion level' interaction. Some people never romanced Aerie, Jaheira, Anomen or Viconia, and thus didn't get the extra interactions with them, and still didn't mind having them around. Not many people criticised BG2 as being 'Frankensteinish' or whatever for having NPCs with varying levels of interaction.

[mph]

If PoE 1 had had sidekicks, we'd have probably gotten to travel with Falanroed, so there's that 

 

Also, it seems that sidekicks may be our best shot at getting another weird/silly character like Minsc or Morte - they're cheaper to make, so Obsidian can afford to take more risks with them. In fact, the four descriptions we got all have some humor potential to them: one is a wizard/captain/drunkard lady, one is obsessed with poisons and possibly an extreme survivalist, another has a thing for dead bodies and gore (but she's nice about it), and yet another is... well, kinda Wolgraff from Original Sin (or maybe Jack from Titanic?). I probably won't have them in my party full-time, but I could see myself taking them out for a quest or two.

Edited February 18, 2017 by mph

[Flouride]

Not a fan of sidekicks, I'd rather they did things properly than half assed... either add more companions in or work on the existing ones more, but giving out half a companion is a bit dodgy...

 

They already have such stretch goal for the game which will be unlocked at 3 million and there's been hints about a 8th companion.

 

Adding a companion takes a lot of time and is costly, not to mention adding 4. The sidekicks are there to give us more tactical options without having to use adventurers and at least the sidekicks will have a personality unlike the zombie adventurers.

 

1 companion won't make much difference when it comes to tactical options/party optimization, 4 sidekicks however will make a diffence. Plus, if they feel like the "sidekicks" from BG they are perfectly fine. B2 had some you could call companions with actual proper storyline and reaction to things and a handful of characters that were there for the ride with their sidequests and who didn't have much to say or to do after that. But those characters still had their uses and fans. I don't recall Minsc having much of personality in BG1, other than being a comic sidekick, but he became a hit and had bigger role in BG2.

Edited February 18, 2017 by Flouride

[LuccA]

BG2 Companions (but not quite because slightly less interaction): Aerie, Anomen, Cernd, Edwin, Imoen, Jaheira, Jan, Keldorn, Korgan, Mazzy, Nalia, Viconia. (Characters who EITHER have a quest after you get them or you can romance.)

BG2 sidekicks: Haer'Dalis, Minsc, Yoshimo

 

Some people like Minsc despite him not having 'companion level' interaction. Some people never romanced Aerie, Jaheira, Anomen or Viconia, and thus didn't get the extra interactions with them, and still didn't mind having them around. Not many people criticised BG2 as being 'Frankensteinish' or whatever for having NPCs with varying levels of interaction.

 

Haer' Dalis had interesting interactions with Jaheira and Aerie (he coud even fight the main character over her), Yoshimo was kind of important for the plot at the end and one or two quests of his own and Misnc had at least entertaining interactions with almost every other companion.

 

By what I understood, the PoE2 sidekicks will be almost like hired adventurers made by the developers with special voice sets and background and a starting dialogue. They would feel out of place even in BG2.

 

Take for example how the new companions added in BG:EE feel in comparison to the original companions. It just feels weird in the whole roster of companions, stitched up... But honestly I have some hope that Obsidian will manage to blend in the sidekicks in a way that doesn't feel too "meta" (for lack of a better way to describe it). Maybe do something like with Heodan and Calisca, where you can recruit them for a certain part of the game.

Edited February 18, 2017 by LuccA

[Flouride]

If PoE 1 had sidekicks, we'd probably get to travel with Falanroed, so there's that 

 

Also, it seems that sidekicks may be our best shot at getting another weird/silly character like Minsc or Morte - they're cheaper to make, so Obsidian can afford to take more risks with them. In fact, the four descriptions we got all have some humor potential to them: one is a wizard/captain/drunkard lady, one is obsessed with poisons and possibly an extreme survivalist, another has a thing for dead bodies and gore (but she's nice about it), and yet another is... well, kinda Wolgraff from Original Sin (or maybe Jack from Titanic?). I probably won't have them in my party full-time, but I could see myself taking them out for a quest or two.

 

Exactly this. It's also a great way to test out characters that could become companions in any sequels/expansions. Just because they are not fully fleshed out for PoE2 doesn't mean they couldn't have bigger role in the future.

In fact they are a lot easier to bring along as companions in the future when those characters have already been introduced to the playerbase.

[mph]

 

By what I understood, the PoE2 sidekicks will be almost like hired adventurers made by the developers with special voice sets and background and a starting dialogue. They would feel out of place even in BG2.

 

 

 

Here's what Feargus said in Fig comments on this:

 

 

What we were working on was the comments that a lot of people had where they wanted more characters we put into the world to join their party. We have the issue that full companions are very, very intensive - months and months of time to do right. We looked back at BG 1 and BG 2, and found that some of the companions don't have the bredth of content that other companions have. So, we thought why not take characters that we are putting into quests that you will have already interacted with a fair amount, and then give you the option to join your party as a different type of companion. They get their own voice set, and will react to things in the world and enter into some banter. They will absolutely have personalities that come through from their look, portrait, and their VO / dialog.

 

So it seems that they'll have banter, comments, a quest during which you meet them and such - just not to the same degree as the full companions (think Rory vs Amy Pond).

Edited February 18, 2017 by mph

[SkySlam]

I think that Feargus or Sawyer already compared the sidekicks to the companions of BG1.

They will have a personality for sure, which is expressed via portrait/voice/barks and also a few reactions to the world and interactions with other members.

 

I think they are a spendid idea and I'm willing to try them all in my party, maybe not the first time around, but later on for sure.

[LuccA]

Well, that makes they blend in a little more for sure. Still not 100% sold on the idea though. There is still a huge chance of getting disappointed by their lack of depth, specially when they all seem to have a lot of potential... =s.

 

I can already see the post-launch comments like "Oh, I loved that sidekick! I wished I could have had a deeper relationship with him/her and see him/her develop more throughout the story!"   ...and that's not a good thing. It feels like wasted potential.

 

And now after watching the last Q&A session with Josh and Carrie, there was a small hint of a possible 8th companion stretch goal. It makes this sidekick stretch goal even more unnecessary.

[draego]

Feargus said this goal wasn't in place of doing a more involved companion:

 

Feargus DEVELOPER

 

You hit the nail on the head when it comes to the "either/or scenerio". Doing the four sidekicks is not instead of doing more full companions.

Feb 17, 2017 | 05:53 PM

 

 

So ye i may never use these npcs maybe, but its fine. It adds flavor to the game. 

 

Edited February 18, 2017 by jnb0364

[CENIC]

There is still a huge chance of getting disappointed by their lack of depth, specially when they all seem to have a lot of potential... =s.

 

I can already see the post-launch comments like "Oh, I loved that sidekick! I wished I could have had a deeper relationship with him/her and see him/her develop more throughout the story!" ...and that's not a good thing. It feels like wasted potential.

 

This is what I forsee happening too.

 

I don't think Obsidian can turn people's expectations back in time. Modern audiences expect depth from companions, especially when Pillars 1, which was supposed to be a straight-up love letter to the 90's, set a precedent for it.

 

Some players will reference Baldur's Gate and excuse it. I hope there are enough of them to drown out the inevitable disappointment.

[evilcat]

I think we can have some serious problem with names.

Sidekick - suggest some form of aprentice. Helpers. Like batman sidekick. Fallowers.

 

Suggestion:

Companions - fully fleshed out companion like Eder

Henchmen/Hirelings/Mercenarry - fully custom body from inn with just some combat barks. No personality or any extra content.

Adventurers, journeyman - some quest, dialogues, banters, lore dump and even backstory but not dynamic relationship, and possibly less text than companions. Adventurers sound proper, since they go with us for an adventurer but are not that attached to our cause.

Edited February 18, 2017 by evilcat

[tinysalamander]

I think we can have some serious problem with names.

Sidekick - suggest some form of aprentice…

 

Apprentice. Hmm, I’d like that for a change. Not quite sure what Watcher could teach them, though.

[JerekKruger]

Not a fan of sidekicks, I'd rather they did things properly than half assed... either add more companions in or work on the existing ones more, but giving out half a companion is a bit dodgy...

 

I tend to agree. I'll wait and see how they end up but I wouldn't be surprised if I end up only using the full blown companions and ignoring the sidekicks. 

[evilcat]

 

I think we can have some serious problem with names.

Sidekick - suggest some form of aprentice…

 

Apprentice. Hmm, I’d like that for a change. Not quite sure what Watcher could teach them, though.

 

 

That is the deal, that no npc is really Watcher sidekick. More like companions, fellow adventurers, or just mercs.

 

That is idea of having Apprentice, there is potencial in such relation: father-daugher, student-master, dark lord-adept... that has some depth.

 

Also Watcher could potencially have own armies, assasins*, spies, traders, whores... that would be a different game. Not saying better/worse but different indeed.

*This probably could fit better Tyranny sequel. Since that strategy elements could be less attractive for classic crpg funs.

Edited February 18, 2017 by evilcat

[Archaven]

i've commented on sidekicks previously and would very much preferred an 8th companion instead. now how about talking about the big city neketaka? just only 1 big city compared to first PoE. does this mean the content is much lesser this time around? or i'll spend 70% of my time just wandering in the city? while i'm big fan of big cities, i'm also a big fan on adventuring! i hope i can travel to more locales.

 

i'm not sure how big is this city but based on what was shown on the introduction, it doesn't look very big at all to me. there's only 6 maps? correct me if i'm wrong: queen's berth, periki's overlook, the gullet, brass citadel, sacred stair and serpent's crown. now unless each of this section has it's own subsection.