WTF are sidekicks?

[Yosharian]

 

 

 

I don't like the idea of a sidekick. They are going to feel like incomplete companions... but that's the point is it not?

 

It's experimental, very much like other traits of the game. I'm sure many people here will love sidekicks as most are backers know what they are getting while the majority of general buyers/players will be confused and ultimately hate sidekicks.

 

Mark my words. People are going to hate sidekicks.

Totally disagree. Again, Baldurs gate is a great example. Minsc was the standout star of the companions and he had very littl added to his character other than exactly what we will get with the sidekicks.

 

 

Minsc had a hamster.

 

Maia has a parrot? Granted, that's probably why she's a companion.

 

If Maia turns out to be even 1/10 as entertaining as Minsc then I'll be impressed.

 

Although actually I never bothered using Minsc after my first playthrough because his stats are weak, haha

[huang]

Weren't most "companions" in Baldur's Gate like sidekicks? Even the ones who had own quests, usually had really short ones. At least short and simple in comparison to the much longer and more complex quests of the Pillars 1 companions. Sometimes I think too many people haven't actually played BG in a long long time.

[SonicMage117]

Oh my.. look what I've done.

[Yosharian]

Weren't most "companions" in Baldur's Gate like sidekicks? Even the ones who had own quests, usually had really short ones. At least short and simple in comparison to the much longer and more complex quests of the Pillars 1 companions. Sometimes I think too many people haven't actually played BG in a long long time.

BG2 companions actually spoke to you in proper conversations, and when they talked to each other it was the same, an actual conversation using the conversation UI as opposed to just being background noise.  Also these conversations frequently had consequences, unlike PoE.

 

BG2 companions also had extremely in-depth romances.

 

Sometimes I think too many people downplay BG2's excellence.  Maybe you need to replay it.

Edited March 4, 2018 by Yosharian

[SonicMage117]

True.

 

It's easy for people to get confused between the two, yet another reason why the general populis of players are going to be that much more confused and will not receive it well.

 

The variable of which you speak is the one which most defines a companion vs that of a sidekick. It seems many here may have forgotten. Very interesting, indeed.

[Bill Gates' Son]

Weren't most "companions" in Baldur's Gate like sidekicks? Even the ones who had own quests, usually had really short ones. At least short and simple in comparison to the much longer and more complex quests of the Pillars 1 companions. Sometimes I think too many people haven't actually played BG in a long long time.

 

I wouldn't say most, but I definitely say characters like Mazzy, Valygar, Korgan, and a few others would probably fit as sidekicks. 

 

Also, someone like the Devil from PoE1 could theoretically fit as a sidekick as well.  You could finish her main quest in minutes after recruiting her, but she still had some banters with other characters.  I assume the sidekicks will be similar to her when it comes to character interaction and content.

Edited March 4, 2018 by Bill Gates' Son

[huang]

 

Weren't most "companions" in Baldur's Gate like sidekicks? Even the ones who had own quests, usually had really short ones. At least short and simple in comparison to the much longer and more complex quests of the Pillars 1 companions. Sometimes I think too many people haven't actually played BG in a long long time.

 

I wouldn't say most, but I definitely say characters like Mazzy, Valygar, Korgan, and a few others would probably fit as sidekicks. 

 

Also, someone like the Devil from PoE1 could theoretically fit as a sidekick as well.  You could finish her main quest in minutes after recruiting her, but she still had some banters with other characters.  I assume the sidekicks will be similar to her when it comes to character interaction and content.

 

Exactly. Don't know where this notion comes from, that every NPC in BG was this deep personality or whatever.

 

I liked the devil actually. At least she had lots of funny remarks and I liked the VO too.

Edited March 4, 2018 by huang

[SonicMage117]

Exactly. Don't know where this notion comes from, that every NPC in BG was this deep personality or whatever.

 

I think it is the fact that people on this forum still worship BG1&2. Not that there's anything wrong with that but sometimes someone will see something amazing that isn't really there and others will follow. Should we drink the kool-aid as well? As members, I think we're obligated to

[Wormerine]

BG2 companions also had extremely in-depth romances.

 

Sometimes I think too many people downplay BG2's excellence.  Maybe you need to replay it.

I actually am. Sort of. Slowly wrapping BG1 right now. I am appreciating PoE1 so much more now.

 

Weren’t romances linear developments which you could do, or not do? Don’t take me wrong, BG2 has still my fav romances in all RPGs but wouldn’t say that they had much depth - they weren’t very interactive or responsive to you as a character. What was great in BG2 was how character interacted and were aware of each other. It something that was lost along the way. It always bothered me in later RPG than except some flavour banter companions seemed to live in their own pocket planes. In Dragon Age I would be a different character for every companion and there wasn’t much crossover. I hope for relationship system to restore (and expand?) those dynamics.

[Yosharian]

 

BG2 companions also had extremely in-depth romances.

 

Sometimes I think too many people downplay BG2's excellence.  Maybe you need to replay it.

I actually am. Sort of. Slowly wrapping BG1 right now. I am appreciating PoE1 so much more now.

 

Weren’t romances linear developments which you could do, or not do? Don’t take me wrong, BG2 has still my fav romances in all RPGs but wouldn’t say that they had much depth - they weren’t very interactive or responsive to you as a character. What was great in BG2 was how character interacted and were aware of each other. It something that was lost along the way. It always bothered me in later RPG than except some flavour banter companions seemed to live in their own pocket planes. In Dragon Age I would be a different character for every companion and there wasn’t much crossover. I hope for relationship system to restore (and expand?) those dynamics.

 

Oh BG1 is nowhere near as good as BG2 in this regard.

 

Romances in BG2 didn't have depth?  What the hell are you talking about.  You can have a ****ing baby with one of them.

 

In any case romances aren't a focus for the Pillars series, never have been.  Obsi has never been particularly interested in them.

 

Here are some examples of the depth of romances in BG2, since I'm clearly bashing my head against a brick wall here.

 

(WARNING: SPOILERS FOR BG2 ROMANCES FOLLOW)

 

• Reputation matters for some of the romances.  If your actions (via the reputation system) aren't appealing to the NPC, they will cut off the romance.  For example, clearly violent actions affect the way Jaheria feels about you, which can result in her cutting off the romance completely.
• Sometimes 'obvious' romance options aren't the ones that the NPC will truly love.  For example, if you sleep with Aerie too early she will cut off the relationship.  With Viconia, if you treat her the way she expects (i.e. sleep with her when she suggests it), she also cuts off the relationship, because she feels as though you're treating her like a slave, as she has been treated before.
• Certain in-game choices will have dramatic consequences for romances, and no consequences for others, dependent on the personality of the NPC.  For example, sleeping with Phaere (story quest) results in Aerie cutting off the romance, whereas other NPCs react differently.
• Frequently the NPCs will 'test' the main character, for example Jaheria sometimes acts bitchy, Viconia... acts that way all the time but let's not go into too much detail.  Point being, it's not all plain sailing, easy mode like it is nowadays with romances.  There are actually challenging moments that you have to stop and think about before responding.  I mean Viconia's romance in particular is filled with tricky twists.

Whatever, I could go into more detail but I think I've proven my point.  If you think all of this is not 'depth' then I'd love to see your recommendation on a better game.  Yeah the romances are linear but all romances in games are linear, none of them are truly reactive, it's just too time-consuming to do such things.  Also, they are only linear in the way that the romances can succeed - there's limited ways for the romances to proceed successfully, that's for sure, but they aren't linear when you consider all the different ways that a romance can progress.  Romances can fail, sometimes in many different ways.  So in that sense they aren't linear.

 

To accuse them of being uninteractive is just plain obtuse, though.

 

Not to mention that the romances are just extremely well-written, aside from the way they are structured, and contain absolutely insane amounts of voice-acting, some of the best voice-acting ever made for a videogame frankly.  Every single one of these characters, even Aerie who I didn't even like that much, their voices and some of their more notable lines are burned into my memory forever.

 

But yeah, clearly I need to replay BG2 some more, clearly I'm just remembering it wrong, and the game is totally overrated, that's definitely it.  

Edited March 5, 2018 by Yosharian

[huang]

 You can have a ****ing baby with one of them.

 

 

What's deep about dropping a single line of text about a baby in one character's epilogue?

[Yosharian]

 

 You can have a ****ing baby with one of them.

 

 

What's deep about dropping a single line of text about a baby in one character's epilogue?

 

 

Actually I believe you can have the baby with Aerie in-game if you wait long enough.  It may be that you can then get married with her aswell, I couldn't get any precise info on it though and I don't have any saves with Aerie romanced (looks like yet another playthrough beckons).  According to another forum source you end up with a baby in your inventory.

 

Furthermore, it seems that all the other NPCs have reactions to you having the baby.  (Again, can't confirm this right now).

 

So yeah.  You're wrong.

 

Please feel free to post the many other games which have romances where you can have a baby in-game that are totally superior to BG2 and actually deep, though.  Go ahead!

 

 

 

(credit to Lindeblom on Beamdog forums)

Aerie can be romanced by male Humans, Elves, Half-elves, Halflings, and Gnomes. Remember that Aerie is deeply traumatized by the loss of her wings. Be kind and understanding, bear with her whining, and don't ridicule her or chastise her for her weakness. I know it can be trying but she will eventually take a more positive outlook on life.

 

When she "offers herself" to you, don't jump at the chance. Suggest instead that you just hold each other while sleeping. Having sex with Aerie may sound like a good idea but it will break the romance.

 

Speaking of sex, "sleeping" with Phaere in Ust'Natha will also ruin this romance!

 

In Throne of Bhaal, Aerie will offer herself to you again. This time it is quite safe to take her up on it – except of course for the inevitable result that Aerie gets pregnant. Should you want to see your baby, these conditions must be met:

 

The baby will be born no earlier than 33 days game time after Aerie announces her pregnancy. [The little bundle of joy]

You must have completed the fifth and last challenge in the Hellish Pocket Plane (fighting the Ravager).

After the challenge comes a love talk where you marry Aerie.

Now wait for 1 hour (real time – just set the game on pause and go get a cup of tea). Aerie will give birth to a healthy baby boy so long as there are no hostile or neutral creatures nearby.

 

If you are trying to romance Aerie, I suggest that you don't bring Haer'Dalis along. He will also fall in love with her and it can be tricky to save your romance in the resulting love triangle.

Edited March 5, 2018 by Yosharian

[huang]

Well by that baby-logic Pillars is at least as deep, because there's, as we all know, the orlan baby.

[Yosharian]

Well by that baby-logic Pillars is at least as deep, because there's, as we all know, the orlan baby.

 

You steal that baby from someone else.  It's not your baby.

 

Do any of your companions make a comment about the baby?

 

Still waiting to hear about those other super deep games that put BG2 to shame

[huang]

Still waiting what's supposed to be so deep about the mention of a baby. btw: Babies are more likely to end the romance.

Edited March 5, 2018 by huang

[Yosharian]

Still waiting what's supposed to be so deep about the mention of a baby. btw: Babies are more likely to end the romance.

 

Define deep.

[Stuurminator]

I can see it now... one sentence negative reviews on Steam be like:

 

"Devs too lazy to write stories for companions. Enter sidekeks" and getting a couple thousand helpful votes.

 

Some people will get salty over it for sure. Unfortunately, it's another door of opportunity for people to criticize.

 

I honestly think that's a bit too pessimistic. While some people definitely will look for any excuse to be angry, I think most players can understand that some party members will always have more content than others. If a player takes a liking to a sidekick and spends the entire game with them in their party, I can see them being disappointed not to get a quest for them, but I doubt there'll be a meaningful outcry over it.

 

I always feel like they had the side kick as a test for some of the minor characters they think has  potential, bud didn't really has enough source to fully develop them.

 

If players like some of the sidekick, they might become full companion in the DLC or the sequel. 

 

Possibly, but I suspect sidekicks are used for concepts that work best in small doses. Some characters are legitimately more likeable as ancillary figures than they would be if they had a larger role.

[Sedrefilos]

We should keep in mind that, from what devs have said, the main difference between companions and sidekicks is that the latter don't have a quest tight to the main story and don't participate in the relationship mechanic. Now the latter is kinda big but they'll have opinions, interjections, dialogues, a main quest that you should accomplish in order for them to follow you etc. They might be more involved and fleshed out than what we think.

[Wormerine]

Oh BG1 is nowhere near as good as BG2 in this regard.

 

 

Yeah, I know that. That is where "sort of" came from.

 

 

 

Romances in BG2 didn't have depth?  What the hell are you talking about.  You can have a ****ing baby with one of them.

 

I feel like we are on the same side and just fight over semantics. I treat dialogue or romances as I would any other system - how interactive it is, how well does it respond to my imput. Planescape had a great dialogue system. Baldur's Gate was always polished, but very restrictive and shallow. I am not saying it as a minus - not every game or story needs depth. Baldurs Gate was fun, safe and satisfying adventure, and so were romances. It still had guts to do things like restricting your romance options based on your character, or draw consequences for certain actions. I would say that it had plenty of content and fine writing, but not depth. But of course, all depends on how we interpret "depth" for ingame romance. 

 

(...)

 

Whatever, I could go into more detail but I think I've proven my point.  If you think all of this is not 'depth' then I'd love to see your recommendation on a better game.  Yeah the romances are linear but all romances in games are linear, none of them are truly reactive, it's just too time-consuming to do such things.  

 

All good points, which make Baldur's Gate romances the most enjoyable I have seen, maybe together with Witcher3. That said, no game did romances right. Aerie having baby is just... really really funny. Like I get what they tried to do, but it doesn't work. Psycho parents murdering people and risking their baby's life in a process.

 

Not to mention that the romances are just extremely well-written, aside from the way they are structured, and contain absolutely insane amounts of voice-acting, some of the best voice-acting ever made for a videogame frankly.  

 

Ok.... It is my first time playing through BG in english (I am attached to Polish dub) so I might come back to it once I play through BG2 in english but I sense a very strong nostalgia goggles syndrome here. 

[malchiorita]

Weren't most "companions" in Baldur's Gate like sidekicks? Even the ones who had own quests, usually had really short ones. At least short and simple in comparison to the much longer and more complex quests of the Pillars 1 companions. Sometimes I think too many people haven't actually played BG in a long long time.

 

Wait.. What? I just bought bg2ee on android and that's better than i remembered... Dialogues are absolutely brilliant. Companions talk with each other, interact with you and with npcs... The interactions are far superior than poe 1 imho, and their personalities are developed a lot better (in poe, as in many other modern rpgs you get an npc and then you have to go through a wall of text having talking to them... While in bg2 the talking develop through the whole story).

 

Some prersonal quests are easily forgettable (i.e. Keldorn) but some others are quite good. I can bet from now that dialogues wise bg2 will be still superior to poe (and that's decades later...)

[Night Stalker]

 

Weren't most "companions" in Baldur's Gate like sidekicks? Even the ones who had own quests, usually had really short ones. At least short and simple in comparison to the much longer and more complex quests of the Pillars 1 companions. Sometimes I think too many people haven't actually played BG in a long long time.

 

Wait.. What? I just bought bg2ee on android and that's better than i remembered... Dialogues are absolutely brilliant. Companions talk with each other, interact with you and with npcs... The interactions are far superior than poe 1 imho, and their personalities are developed a lot better (in poe, as in many other modern rpgs you get an npc and then you have to go through a wall of text having talking to them... While in bg2 the talking develop through the whole story).

 

Some prersonal quests are easily forgettable (i.e. Keldorn) but some others are quite good. I can bet from now that dialogues wise bg2 will be still superior to poe (and that's decades later...)

 

 

I think huang was referring to Baldur's Gate 1.

[Wormerine]

 

Weren't most "companions" in Baldur's Gate like sidekicks? Even the ones who had own quests, usually had really short ones. At least short and simple in comparison to the much longer and more complex quests of the Pillars 1 companions. Sometimes I think too many people haven't actually played BG in a long long time.

Wait.. What? I just bought bg2ee on android and that's better than i remembered... Dialogues are absolutely brilliant. Companions talk with each other, interact with you and with npcs... The interactions are far superior than poe 1 imho, and their personalities are developed a lot better (in poe, as in many other modern rpgs you get an npc and then you have to go through a wall of text having talking to them... While in bg2 the talking develop through the whole story).

 

Some prersonal quests are easily forgettable (i.e. Keldorn) but some others are quite good. I can bet from now that dialogues wise bg2 will be still superior to poe (and that's decades later...)

What I find interesting, now returning to Baldur's Gate after playing PoE, is that I am going through an "adjustment period", similar to the one I had to go through when playing PoE for the first time. And yes, I know that BG2 is better than BG1, but tone is more or less similar. I get annoyed how black an white conflicts are, how silly character are. Companions have little nuance (I am MINSC, and I talk to HAMSTER and I am STUPID). I am playing a thief and am trying to be a self centered character but its very difficult. In typical bioware fasion conversation choices range from psychotic **** to mother teresa, with little inbetween. After couple hours I started to think why I enjoyed those game at all, I recalled a feeling of adventure, and colourful characters and fun. And so I stopped trying to roleplay, or think and just started to follow threads game offers and I am enjoying it again. I stopped thinking about consequences of my actions because it is Baldurs Gate, and the world is black and white, and if you kill bad guys you do good, because they are bad guys and in this world they are nothing more than that. 

 

What I am trying to say is, that BG1&2 didn't have better developed characters - even at its best they are fairly basic. But they pop better. They have personalities that are clearly communicated, and that are fun. But they are more cartoons than humans, their conflict is basic and possible to resolve. The "problem" with PoE1 characters is that there is more to them than they are letting on. It takes time for them to open up. Finishing their quests leaves you with questions - you understand their conflict but it is beyond your skill to fix it. 

 

Even at the time BG was heavily out classed by Planescape when it comes to roleplaying, characters, writing. But it has a nice pace, and sense of fun, which makes it really approachable and easy to sink time into.

[Mannock]

What I find interesting, now returning to Baldur's Gate after playing PoE, is that I am going through an "adjustment period", similar to the one I had to go through when playing PoE for the first time. And yes, I know that BG2 is better than BG1, but tone is more or less similar. I get annoyed how black an white conflicts are, how silly character are. Companions have little nuance (I am MINSC, and I talk to HAMSTER and I am STUPID). I am playing a thief and am trying to be a self centered character but its very difficult. In typical bioware fasion conversation choices range from psychotic **** to mother teresa, with little inbetween. After couple hours I started to think why I enjoyed those game at all, I recalled a feeling of adventure, and colourful characters and fun. And so I stopped trying to roleplay, or think and just started to follow threads game offers and I am enjoying it again. I stopped thinking about consequences of my actions because it is Baldurs Gate, and the world is black and white, and if you kill bad guys you do good, because they are bad guys and in this world they are nothing more than that. 

 

What I am trying to say is, that BG1&2 didn't have better developed characters - even at its best they are fairly basic. But they pop better. They have personalities that are clearly communicated, and that are fun. But they are more cartoons than humans, their conflict is basic and possible to resolve. The "problem" with PoE1 characters is that there is more to them than they are letting on. It takes time for them to open up. Finishing their quests leaves you with questions - you understand their conflict but it is beyond your skill to fix it. 

 

Even at the time BG was heavily out classed by Planescape when it comes to roleplaying, characters, writing. But it has a nice pace, and sense of fun, which makes it really approachable and easy to sink time into.

You have a good point there. There's a lot of nostalgia covering the BG-series. It's nice and good, but it's simplistic by most standards today.

 

Though what one should keep in mind is that BG2 in particular was revolutionizing when it was released. The amount of interaction you had with your companions set a new standard at that time. The game brings out a lot of fun and it's one of the few cRPG:s I can go back to and play today and have fun with.

 

The companions of PoE are in general much more interesting than the BG2 companions in general. So if the sidekicks keep the same standard of writing as were the case of the companions of PoE I'm sure these sidekicks will offer just as much fun and interest (even if not the same depth) as some of the companions of BG2 did. Without a doubt.

[algroth]

I wouldn't hold Baldur's Gate's two-dimensionality against it mostly because I feel that at the time the game set a golden standard for fantasy RPGs and games have since had to work upon that standard, either replicating, matching, expanding or breaking it in some fashion. But its simplicity does make it a weird game to evaluate in today's standards or when comparing it to a game like Pillars of Eternity, where the focus has shifted more from making RPGs as a tabletop campaign simulation with an automated dungeon master, to making an interactive epic with its own thematic concerns and narrative ambitions, centred around the single character where they are at the heart of the story and where companions are built as fully-fledged secondary characters with their own personal arcs that you must help resolve in some fashion or other. One thing I recall being slightly disappointed about early on was in the "small" number of companions one could recruit... Then I also realized that I was expecting a roster of companions as big as those in the Baldur's Gate games and was ignoring that the characters in Pillars or just about any modern RPG for that matter tend to have three times as much writing and interactivity than the characters in the former series did, if not more. Without a doubt a character like Edér or Hiravias or Durance is much more involved with the story of Pillars and tends to react more often to environmental and dialogue prompts than the likes of any character in Baldur's Gate, regardless of romance - and most of all, they each have their own character arcs and transformation whereas, with the exception of a small handful of characters in Shadows of Amn, most characters in the Baldur's Gate series would remain rather static throughout.

 

I do on the other hand agree that romance is pretty well-written and involved in Baldur's Gate II, but above all else it's also because from what I can recall it's the mechanism with which the few companions with a possible arc in the game actually developed and changed. If I'm not mistaken, Viconia's "redemption" only comes about through her romance plot, for example, whilst Aerie only really strengthens as a character and becomes a more powerful and independent person through her relationship with the Bhaalspawn. Whereas in most videogames with romance these usually feel aesthetic or superficial, like adding in some affectionate names and some gratuitous 3D sex scenes, in Baldur's Gate II it feels as if the romantic subplots act as catalysts for change and that makes them overall much more rewarding and "deeper". The issue, perhaps, is that I don't feel like these character have much going for them beyond these romances and a couple of sidequests. In Pillars on the other hand, the companion arcs still exist regardless of whether they were romanceable or not. I personally do not see how, say, Durance (to take an extreme example) is a shallower character than any of the Baldur's Gate ones, or would be better served by giving him some manner of "romance" (as if that'd apply for this particular character). But to go for a more "expected" romantic partner, I don't see how the likes of Pallegina or Edér suffered for the lack of one either - their depth as characters and with regards to their own specific stories and conflicts still made up for any romantic catalyst prompting a transformation in them.

 

Anyhow, I feel this is all mostly a digression. But generally speaking I don't think either games are very comparable in this regard. Pillars' character design is clearly much more complex and involved than that of the Baldur's Gate series, but that has also sort of become the norm nowadays thanks to the likes of Baldur's Gate II and Planescape: Torment (the latter of which I feel was used as more of a basis for Pillars and most Obsidian games anyhow) and the possibilities they first hinted at or succeeded in with their own. Deadfire on the other hand does seem to promise even deeper and more involved companions as well, so we'll see how that goes.

Edited March 5, 2018 by algroth

[rjshae]

Still waiting what's supposed to be so deep about the mention of a baby. btw: Babies are more likely to end the romance.

 

One of these days we'll see a sequel where the baby you create will grow up to become the protagonist. Or perhaps the grandparent of the protagomist. I.e. a dynasty tale.