21 réponses à ce sujet

[Hainkpe]

BG has an EE coming out that adds three new companions. Why? 

What is it with having numerous companions rather than having a few well written, story connected companions that actually have a place in the PCs actions and choices? Companions that actually enhance and further the story versus trite overused types. 

I an tired of seeing numerous companions. Some of which you never use! Look at ME2. Bah. 

[happy_daiz]

Because you must have no less than six sitting on your bench, at any given time. Someone's got to keep that thing warm.

[OdanUrr]

No idea. I'd rather have a small, close-knit group.

By the by, I thought it had released already?

[Hainkpe]

I glanced at the EE this morning then shut the window in disgust. A true whatever moment.

Give me companions that have a place in the PCs story. Make them matter not just a string or line up to choose from. Oh look another character that may have something cheeky to say.

[Seagloom]

I don't mind them adding new companions into the EE versions of BG as most of the existing companions weren't relevant to that story anyway. Basically we got Imoen, Jaheira, Yoshimo, and Sarevok. Everyone else exists on the take them or leave them list IMO.

I don't mind either approach. It depends on how the game treats companions. For a heavily story driven experience such as PST, I did appreciate a smaller roster. Most CRPGs aren't that weighted in story, however.

There is also something to be said about having options. There's a higher chance you'll be able to put together a group with personalities and abilities you appreciate with a wider selection. Imagine being stuck in a scenario where there were no choices, and half your party was irritating? ~Tries not to think of Beyond the Beyond~

[Am1vf]

 Because "less is worse". Didn't you know? that's in the motto of every major gaming publisher.

[Cutlass Jack]

Hainkpe wrote...

BG has an EE coming out that adds three new companions. Why? 

What is it with having numerous companions rather than having a few well written, story connected companions that actually have a place in the PCs actions and choices? Companions that actually enhance and further the story versus trite overused types. 

I an tired of seeing numerous companions. Some of which you never use! Look at ME2. Bah. 

Its already come out.

As to why, you gave your own answer. The original compainions in Baldur's Gate were only minimally written with almost no plotlines of their own. It was BG2 where the companions took on that 'Bioware' flavor of being developed. The EE addresses that.

The three new EE companions are more like BG2 companions for the first game. They come with new content and storylines and romances that carry through into the next game. The new characters definately fill a romantic void in the original game. In particular, fleshing out options for women that are not Amoen. And a same sex option for both genders. 

The other aspect you need to look at is replay value. BG has a broad range of characters that aren't meant for every party. Because things like the players class and alignment come into play. Party crafting is half the fun of the Baldur's Gate games. You can't recruit everyone. The new characters fill certain voids in the original lineup (like the lack of an evil thief in BG2)

Modifié par Cutlass Jack, 11 décembre 2013 - 04:37 .

[Am1vf]

Cutlass Jack wrote...

Hainkpe wrote...

BG has an EE coming out that adds three new companions. Why? 

What is it with having numerous companions rather than having a few well written, story connected companions that actually have a place in the PCs actions and choices? Companions that actually enhance and further the story versus trite overused types. 

I an tired of seeing numerous companions. Some of which you never use! Look at ME2. Bah. 

Its already come out.

As to why, you gave your own answer. The original compainions in Baldur's Gate were only minimally written with almost no plotlines of their own. It was BG2 where the companions took on that 'Bioware' flavor of being developed. The EE addresses that.

The three new EE companions are more like BG2 companions for the first game. They come with new content and storylines and romances that carry through into the next game. The new characters definately fill a romantic void in the original game. In particular, fleshing out options for women that are not Amoen. And a same sex option for both genders. 

The other aspect you need to look at is replay value. BG has a broad range of characters that aren't meant for every party. Because things like the players class and alignment come into play. Party crafting is half the fun of the Baldur's Gate games. You can't recruit everyone. The new characters fill certain voids in the original lineup (like the lack of an evil thief in BG2)

Alright, that actually seems reasonable 

[Jozape]

Hainkpe wrote...

I glanced at the EE this morning then shut the window in disgust. A true whatever moment.

Give me companions that have a place in the PCs story. Make them matter not just a string or line up to choose from. Oh look another character that may have something cheeky to say.

You do not know how deep these companions are based off a few sentences. Why are you jumping to conclusions? Additionally, developing 3 companions does not exactly seem like a spreading your resources too thin for character development type of problem. On the contrary, 3 companions is quite anemic for a party based RPG. Additionally, IIRC, due to publisher requirements, they could not modify existing companions in any significant manner; the development of new companions was the only realistic option.

By the way, BG:EE was available for purchase over a year ago, and even BG2:EE is available for purchase now.

Modifié par Jozape, 11 décembre 2013 - 04:53 .

[Hainkpe]

Look, more companions doesn't mean more content. Rehashing of old characters doesn't mean paying more money.

Anecdotally, a number of games are moving more and more toward this model of play. Numerous companions that are basically space holders with certain powers. Given the right game with a modding kit, I can build this for myself. What I as a gamer would like is more content not numerous companions rehashing old events.

And yes, it is available but my point is still valid. More companions are a trend. Does this make better games or just a lazy way to make more money? I argue it's the latter versus the former. Expansions used to be based on game content not just additional slot holders.

[Joy Divison]

Cutlass Jack wrote...

Hainkpe wrote...

BG has an EE coming out that adds three new companions. Why? 

What is it with having numerous companions rather than having a few well written, story connected companions that actually have a place in the PCs actions and choices? Companions that actually enhance and further the story versus trite overused types. 

I an tired of seeing numerous companions. Some of which you never use! Look at ME2. Bah. 

Its already come out.

As to why, you gave your own answer. The original compainions in Baldur's Gate were only minimally written with almost no plotlines of their own. It was BG2 where the companions took on that 'Bioware' flavor of being developed. The EE addresses that.

The three new EE companions are more like BG2 companions for the first game. They come with new content and storylines and romances that carry through into the next game. The new characters definately fill a romantic void in the original game. In particular, fleshing out options for women that are not Amoen. And a same sex option for both genders. 

The other aspect you need to look at is replay value. BG has a broad range of characters that aren't meant for every party. Because things like the players class and alignment come into play. Party crafting is half the fun of the Baldur's Gate games. You can't recruit everyone. The new characters fill certain voids in the original lineup (like the lack of an evil thief in BG2)

This is well said.

[Cutlass Jack]

Hainkpe wrote...

Look, more companions doesn't mean more content. Rehashing of old characters doesn't mean paying more money.

Anecdotally, a number of games are moving more and more toward this model of play. Numerous companions that are basically space holders with certain powers. Given the right game with a modding kit, I can build this for myself. What I as a gamer would like is more content not numerous companions rehashing old events.

And yes, it is available but my point is still valid. More companions are a trend. Does this make better games or just a lazy way to make more money? I argue it's the latter versus the former. Expansions used to be based on game content not just additional slot holders.

Except when more companions come with more actual content. Which these ones do. New maps, new quests, relationships etc. You may not like the content, but its still more content.

They even interact with previous companions. For example, Viconia has some good exchanges with new monk Rasaad based on them following rival gods.

The Black Pits is also entirely new content unconnected to the main game (though one character from that story is a hidden 4th new companion in the main game. Pretty funny one.)

Modifié par Cutlass Jack, 11 décembre 2013 - 05:39 .

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

See the positive side of having many companions. You at least find some good companions (like in ME2). In ME3 there is only two good companions: Garrus and Javik. Others are horrible or has changed personality (at least James Vega is tolerable). Also in New Vegas half of the companions are cool.

If they have voice acting, certain special moments, dialogues and missions, the more the better. But if they're like IceWind Dale companions that are just physically there, no thanks.

[Volus Warlord]

Several well-done companions can add replayability..

[happy_daiz]

I don't mind if companions are just along the ride, (as a meat shield/pack mule).

Even hiring a mercenary in Skyrim, who doesn't have that much unique dialogue, is preferable to adventuring alone for me. It yields some illusion of comraderie and conversation...even if it's one-sided.

And dat Teldryn Sero.

Modifié par happy_daiz, 11 décembre 2013 - 06:26 .

[Cyonan]

I prefer more of a balance between the two myself.

Too many companions just makes them into largely faceless entities that I send to their eventual deaths, while too little companions results in things like "want a healer? Bring Anders because he's the only one!".

[billy the squid]

Shame they couldn't actually get BF4 out the door without it turning into a clusterfuck.

Modifié par billy the squid, 11 décembre 2013 - 06:47 .

[happy_daiz]

Cyonan wrote...

I prefer more of a balance between the two myself.

Too many companions just makes them into largely faceless entities that I send to their eventual deaths, while too little companions results in things like "want a healer? Bring Anders because he's the only one!".

Honestly, if I could have hired a generic mercenary mage/healer, in lieu of Anders, I would have been much happier.

[Jozape]

Cyonan wrote...

I prefer more of a balance between the two myself.

Too many companions just makes them into largely faceless entities that I send to their eventual deaths, while too little companions results in things like "want a healer? Bring Anders because he's the only one!".

I actually like being forced to bring people I or my character hates to the party. It tends to make the interactions more interesting.

I would rather not do that for an entire game, of course.

[Cyonan]

Jozape wrote...

I actually like being forced to bring people I or my character hates to the party. It tends to make the interactions more interesting.

I would rather not do that for an entire game, of course.

It's less about bringing people my character doesn't like and more about being severely limited in how I can design my group.

They could have two healers I don't care for if they'd like, as long as I have more choices than just Anders(or rolling a healer myself) if I want a healer in the group.

In Origins, if I didn't want to use Wynne as a healer I could always turn Morrigan into one. 

[AutumnWitch]

Because not all people will like all companions. In both of the DA games there were certain companions that I never used unless it was a specific quest I needed to get something I couldnt otherwise get BUT after forcing me to use these companions I didn't like I started to look at them differently and it made my game so much better. And I started using them and loved the game that much better.

The first few times I played DAO I never even talked to Sten..didn't even let him out of the cage..but one time I did just for the heck of it and after I used him for a few quests he became one of my fav companions. They completely change the perspective of the game and the story.

More companions are always better in my mind, I love seeing how all the pieces fit together and how different the threads of fate can be. LOVE IT

[Endurium]

I miss when I could simply avoid companions I didn't want in my group, or if I did a quest for a potential companion I could tell them I wasn't interested and they'd go somewhere to wait forever. Now I get companions of varying alignment forced into my "camp", and some quests force me to bring them along.

My other issue is having to wait for companions I want until I've advanced significantly through a game (or mod the game to have them earlier as in the case of ME2).

Baldur's Gate 2 struck a nice balance and is my favorite game where pre-written companions are concerned. I could pick up only those I wanted and leave the rest behind; they were never part of an all-knowing "camp". Out of the way companions could be acquired fairly early by focusing on the quests leading to them, such that I could form my group and still have about 95% of the game to experience.

Modern companion systems place Developer Convenience before Player Agency.

That said, the companions I actually want in my group have been enjoyable over the years. I always look forward to more.

Modifié par Endurium, 11 décembre 2013 - 08:14 .