And you are absolutely right about that – this is how it should be.
Yet people tend to try to do "all quests" and get all the rewards – it's not "roleplaying the game" anymore, but it's "master the game". When i play BG which i know in and out and i have meta detailed knowledge, i'm still roleplaying, like not doing things that don't fit my alignment, but i "know" what i'm leaving out or letting go by that decision, and in BG / BG2 it's somewhat on a level where consequences are there, but not changing the game significantly. When playing PoE which i don't know well, this was one of the first things that somewhat fascinated – i realized the NPCs were adjusting to me, but the consequences were not very transparent, and i caught myself to try out different replies, different characters etc., just to test the system that may be hiding things from me i'd like to see (not because i'm greedy, but because i want to see all of a good game and be sure i've somewhen seen it all). That's meta thinking and non-immersive, but it's an urge, and from what i read here and elsewhere i'm not the only one doing that.
Just an opinion though, and i don't say things should not adjust at all – just keep it somewhat in on a level where, when one knows the game in and out, one actually can do that kind of "complete run" if he wants.
Yes, more or less like in Dragon Age: Origins. I also want to try everything, the thing is: nobody prevents you from doing that and it increase the re-playability of the game itself.
1. Diverse and interesting companions with both romances and non-romantic paths. Well written companions are essential. Pillars of Eternity companions felt too simple and mostly boring, when compared to some other games. And yes, we need diversive characters (romances and talks that take into account that players also differ - there are men, women, gay, lesbian, bisexual players, those who seek safe relationships and those who fall for the "bad guys/girls"). But pure existanc eof the romance is not enough. It should blend in with the story and character's past and presence. Not like in Technomancers, where romances were just 3 talks (1 - I like you; 2 - I like you even more; 3 - I want to sleep with you.) I think most players (who like romances) expect more than that. And it may be a good idea to make NPC interesting *even if you don't romance them*.
2. Hard choices combined with immersive experience. I like those in BioWare games, when you need to think, accept the outcome and be aware of the fact that those outcomes may come more than once, sometimes in late game. I know not all of the BioWare decisions and outcomes were great, but there were some certain points that felt great. I want to know the game's universe and characters to know what I did.
3. A fair balance of fighting, talking and exploration. Because I expect more than just one thing from a game. I would like to both see beautiful places, with interesting characters, but I would also like to meet some people there, talk, and know what in this beauty a possible danger may await.
1. A variety of interesting companions who interact with each other, a la bg 2. I feel fleshed out companions are one of the main factors to creating an immersive role playing experience.
2. Consequences. One thing I quite liked in SoD was the consequences of your actions had an effect on the end game. I liked how the allies I had for the main battle were effected by my earlier quests.
3. Skill & stat checks are nice contributions to role playing as well.
Interesting bunch of lists (and thank you to those who restricted yourself to three points -- longer lists are great, but since we can't focus on everything in development we'd like to either, I find it helpful to give the same kind of limitations to the feedback). A lot of it included some assumptions about what we're working on, which I hope everyone recognizes they shouldn't cling too tightly to, but I can't expect anything different without providing you information to the contrary.
And I'm not about to do that. Yet.
If I was going to continue the conversation, however, I would narrow its focus just a tad. One thing games I've worked on have been pretty well-known for has been their companions -- the folks who join your party and which in and of themselves absorb a great deal of the writing effort. So I'm curious:
1) Do you enjoy these sorts of companions? Is there a single element common to them in RPG's which you simply must have, or which you would prefer to do without?
2) Is there a particular type of companion character you feel hasn't been done (or done enough) and which you'd like to see? You can make this as specific to D&D as a setting or not, as you like.
Companions was number 1 on my list, I've always enjoyed your companions @David_Gaider Variety is important, different personalities, agendas (depending on the story) and alignment of course. I think adding a twist to a companions story is a great idea adding a element of surprise. Customisation of companions is also a plus. I'm still thinking on this so I'm sure there's more
One thing I kind of became alergic over the years is the "romances". That includes the moody music and the hearts next to the dialog options. Often, the only way to learn more about companions is to "romance" them. I would much prefer "relationships" instead. The thing that doesn't have to end romantically, but you can still learn more about them, begin to care, become friends etc.
1. Friendships and Romances. I know a lot of people are "meh" on the whole romance deal but for me they're sort of required to enter my "top 10 favorite RPG list" and they add another layer to the development between characters. Between Aerie from BG2, Leliana from DA:O, and Gann in NWN2 as a few of my top NPCs, I've had the ability to form deeper bonds with them through romance.
I think, though, for every character that can't be romanced (either they aren't at all or you're not the particular race/gender eligible for a particular romance) some sort of equally long "friendship" quest should exist.
2. I actually would really, really enjoy a female shorty character (with possible romance options if they are included in the game). Someone light-hearted like Alora in BG1. Someone overtly "cute" but possibly having a distraught inner struggle that's covered by that cuteness or maybe an option for them to become hardened and more ruthless through alignment shifts that is counter to their obvious adorable nature.
In Dragon Age: Inquisition I was teased with the pseudo-romance for Scout Harding but then it never went anywhere as it wasn't a real option. None of my favorite games really offer the chance to romance a shorty either. Alora is my favorite character in BG1 but I literally can't find another character like her in any other game. Gnomes are one of my favorite races to play so I'd enjoy having another gnome or halfling as a romance option. I know I'm bias as my favorite D&D character that I use also in CRPGs is Piro Faeren, my pink haired female gnome bard, but I'd love to see a character like the one I've made in a game.
We've had enough elf and human romances to last us a lifetime. I'd love something a tad bit more exotic. Though I, personally, would prefer a female character to fill the role, a male one would work too if that fits your character roster better.
Off Subject: I haven't played SoD yet, btw. Is Glint a character similar to what I've described? I've been trying to find great shorty characters in games for a while and have found so few. The only leads I have atm are Glint in SoD and that halfling ranger in Sword Coast Legends which I haven't played yet either.
Edit: If I could make a request as well I would like to see the relationship start mid-game rather than end-game. Keeping a relationship happening can be just as fun and interesting as starting one.
I like it when companions have their own personality. I like it when they disagree with you, give ideas, etc. This is something I feel makes the game world a living place.
It is really good not to be followed by a bunch of robots that obey every command without discussion and ignoring completely their descriptions and beliefs.
Companions are an absolute must for me. Imo they are the bread, butter and meat of games like these.
As for companion types, I feel it's most important to have a certain co-dependency going on between them and Charname. As the player I want to need them beyond their pure gameplay based use and in return I want to be able to make an impact on them.
Also, please make sure the companions are not too agreeable ... I want them to bicker and fight. Bonus points if they get angry because they like Charname so much.
Obviously relationships can lead to romance. I just don't like the idea of a companion to be there purely as a romance option.
What determines whether a companion is there "purely as a romance option", I wonder?
I can't say I've ever put a companion into a game just for that reason. Making them a romance has always been something decided after the rest of their character concept. That doesn't mean one might not perceive it as such, however. But what would cause it to be perceived so? Is it romances with gay options, or romances which receive a lot of attention from the community? Or something else?
1) Do you enjoy these sorts of companions? Is there a single element common to them in RPG's which you simply must have, or which you would prefer to do without?
2) Is there a particular type of companion character you feel hasn't been done (or done enough) and which you'd like to see? You can make this as specific to D&D as a setting or not, as you like.
1) I really love the romance quests, but I would like it if all the companions got friendship/relationship quests regardless of whether you choose to romance them. There should be a "romance path" to the relationship quest/conversation options for the romanceable characters, but I'd really want for every character to have a full quest/conversation path.
Everyone has their favourite characters as they play through an RPG like the ones you've been involved with, and no one character is ever denied that "favourite character" spot when you consider all the players there are out there playing your games. Lots of people love Tiax, and lots of people would no doubt have enjoyed playing an Evil playthrough of BG where they could strengthen their bonds with their favourite tyrant-aspirant with a third person desire to rule all persons from first through third throughout the land! He's not my personal favourite, but I know people who hold that position both in real life and on these very forums, and honestly I'd be really excited if I knew the replay value of a game included unique conversation paths and quests for every companion! I know every single one of us would feel thrilled to know that no matter who we wind up loving best of the companions Beamdog cooks up for us, we can follow a questline to its conclusion that reveals more about that character!
Another element that I really enjoyed that's already been mentioned is if the companion's personal quests/conversation options lets us choose perhaps to shape them? I've always liked the idea from KOTOR of being able to seduce certain characters to the Dark Side (or redeem them to the Light!) and I think in a D&D game in the spirit of Baldur's Gate it would really help the replay value as well if at least some of the Good characters (the romanceable options and more plot-central companions at least!) could be swayed to Evil or at least Evil-tolerating Neutrality for your Evil playthroughs, and vice versa for Good playthroughs with the romanceable and more plot-central Evil companions (in an ideal world, I'd like almost all the companions to be able to be swayed...it's your story after all, making it yours is part of the fun)!
Viconia's redemption came at the very furthest reaches of BG2 in ToB (an especially long journey if she'd been your Good or Neutral party's cleric since the first game!) so it'd be nice if this was based on conversations/personal quests, and again there may be some characters you wonderful folks making the story and companions for us deem uncorruptible/irredeemable, but there always seem to be not enough characters a) of Evil alignment and b) of particular party roles, so it would be cool if you could fill out your ranks as an Evil character with some corruptible Good companions who you bond with and corrupt over time to see the world closer to how your villain views it...to me though, the most satisfying is the redemption arcs! I know it would really increase the replay value to play someone who was a literal redeemer, a Good character adding only the redeemable Evil characters to their party and slowly converting them all to the cause of Good (sounds like a pretty good Achievement pairing too, Redeemer and Corrupter would be fun Achievements on GOG Galaxy or Steam or consoles to aim for on a particular playthrough with a Good and Evil character respectively, aim for an entire party of converts!)
More important than the Redeemable Evil Coupons and the Gotta Corrupt 'Em All ideas above is the first one I emphasize though, I really think it's important to fully flesh out every character and not just the ones you can romance (although I do love replaying for different romances)!
2) A traditional Dwarven Defender hammer-and-shield style fighter and more half-orcs (and/or some actual orcs)! If you're including Genasi as an option for the player to choose, at least one Genasi would be nice! This poll's results seems to show that people want aasimar/tiefling and monstrous race companion options (personally, I think an xvart jester bard would make my day! but more seriously a full-blooded orc or orog would be a really cool barbarian companion, or maybe a gray orc wizard? and M'Khiin is my fave SoD companion by far so take from that what you will), but the poll definitely shows that far and away what most people want is a good solid Dwarf companion (and many of the comments expressed desire for a traditional dwarf rather than a Korgan or a Kagain), and I myself voted Dwarf in that poll!
I think we all want to see at least one Dwarven Defender fighter, at least one rogue, at least one cleric and at least one wizard. But traditionally those have been the most popular 4 classes to see spread amongst the companions in BG/BG2 (I think it goes Thief, Fighter, Mage, Cleric, Bard, Ranger, Druid, Paladin, Sorcerer/Monk/Shaman in that order throughout the series, including the EEs, if you count each class of a multiclass separately), so it'd be cool to see a few more of the companion classes less traveled in the new game, whether it's a new Baldur's Gate or just in the spirit of the Infinity Engine D&D games. Obviously Barbarian and Warlock companions would be good since we'll be using the 5e ruleset and those are PH classes we haven't seen before. I mean, even among the options available to a player in BGEE/BG2EE, there are quite a few we didn't see as companions:
I know we're using 5e, but I think that's a good place to start when pondering how to keep the new companions fresh while filling party roles!
And as a trans woman I just gotta say, on a personal note: it'd be real cool if one of them was a trans woman. I know Beamdog just weathered a firestorm on that front, but even just having a merchant NPC involved in a couple quests made me so, so happy, and seeing Ed Greenwood come out and say that we have a place in the Realms got me really choked up in the best possible way (even if the hatred that provoked his response was something I'd rather not have had to see and experience as a trans woman who picked up BG in the 90s before I even realized I was trans, I will still always cherish that response).
I was seeing myself in a game with Mizhena, and I for one am always going to be happy that I was thrown even this meager bone in a deluge of games that don't bother to represent me in the least. If a bigger bone was thrown my way in Beamdog's Next Big Thing, I'd be wagging my tail and happily barking for YEARS about it!
But enough about me: just GIVE US SOME DWARVES ENCASED IN ARMOR AND SHIELD LIKE A STEEL TOMB, CRUSHING OUR FOES UNDER HAMMERBLOWS THAT WAKE THE ENTIRE MORNDINSAMMAN FROM THEIR DIVINE REVERIES AND SEND THEM RUSHING TO LEND THEIR THUNDEROUS APPLAUSE FROM BEYOND REALITY IN HONOUR OF THE PEERLESS BATTLE PROWESS OF THEIR FAERÛNIAN CHILD
Off Subject: I haven't played SoD yet, btw. Is Glint a character similar to what I've described? I've been trying to find great shorty characters in games for a while and have found so few. The only leads I have atm are Glint in SoD and that halfling ranger in Sword Coast Legends which I haven't played yet either.
All I'll say is roll yourself a male gnome illusionist with bright funky-coloured hair and leave a slot open for a delightful cleric/thief with equally funky hair to sweep you off your little feet! Be the tiny gay gnome rainbow you want to see in the world!
Obviously relationships can lead to romance. I just don't like the idea of a companion to be there purely as a romance option.
What determines whether a companion is there "purely as a romance option", I wonder?
I can't say I've ever put a companion into a game just for that reason. Making them a romance has always been something decided after the rest of their character concept. That doesn't mean one might not perceive it as such, however. But what would cause it to be perceived so? Is it romances with gay options, or romances which receive a lot of attention from the community? Or something else?
I've always thought that the option to romance in any given playthrough is up to the player, and that the more options there are the better, because in each playthrough, the choices you as an individual player playing your own custom character make foreclose other choices, which means if your party is full of romanceable companions and you're only engaging in the romance option with one, then the other romanceable companions clearly weren't "purely a romance option" since you're using them to fill other roles and not engaging in that content. If you choose another one to romance in another playthrough where you wind up using your first option as another party member, then the one you romanced the first time through wasn't "purely for romance", and so I've never quite understood that logic myself.
Outside of some more humour-oriented characters in early CRPGs (who were never romance options), I've never seen a CRPG companion who wasn't a complex, fully realized character as a romance option. If anything, romance options tend to get a bit more attention to their character because of the additional conversations/quests involving them (which is why I and others have emphasized the need for friendship/relationship quests for all companions, with romance paths for whichever ones Beamdog opts to write those for).
I also like the Garrus/Tali, Haer'Dalis/Aerie dimension of romances where if you're not romancing someone they have relationships within the party. That really is a cool thing, and I'd love if there was a bit of that in the Next Big Thing from Beamdog!
Obviously relationships can lead to romance. I just don't like the idea of a companion to be there purely as a romance option.
What determines whether a companion is there "purely as a romance option", I wonder?
I can't say I've ever put a companion into a game just for that reason. Making them a romance has always been something decided after the rest of their character concept. That doesn't mean one might not perceive it as such, however. But what would cause it to be perceived so? Is it romances with gay options, or romances which receive a lot of attention from the community? Or something else?
I'm generalising here I think some romantic relationships in games have been a little rushed and feel somewhat unnatural because of this. There's often very little of a 'buildup' to the relationship and when there is, it's often too short. Maybe that's just me hehe. What about two people that hate each other to begin with, has that been done? I know there's only space for so much dialog in a game so I'm not sure what can and can't be done. I think when the community focuses on that companions romancibility and nothing else has an impact too.
But then it's also not necessary to romance someone in every playthrough. Having the ability to be just good friends is cool too like my FemShep and Garrus
To adress the more specific questions about companions:
1) Companions are among the things that make or break a cRPG for me. Take the companions out of a game, and it instantly is much less interesting (which is why I've only ever played through Icewind Dale once, and through the Baldur's Gate games lots and lots of times). As for one thing these companions should have: Lots and lots of personality - this is a video game, and the people you meet and travel with should be memorable. Pillars of Eternity tried to go (with some exceptions) for more subdued, realistic companions, and they aren't nearly as popular as the companions in games like BG2 or Dragon Age: Origins (despite Pillars of Eternity having some great writers as well). I can do without romances, but if they evolve organically, they can be really nice (what I don't like is: "Oh, you hit this specific approval rating? I'm in love with you now!").
2) Something that hasn't been done enough? I feel like, specifically in a D&D setting, there haven't been a lot of convincing clerics. The gods are a big deal in the realms, but even their own clerics rarely mention them in most D&D games - I never got the sense of a deeply faithful cleric and his/her struggle with belief, other gods/churches, their perception by the public etc. - there are so many interesting deities in the realms (and even non-cleric characters could be devoted to some of the more interesting ones), and a lot of them have never been explored at all in video games (for example, I really like the Red Knight - she would make an awesome deity for a potential companion). This is one thing Pillars of Eternity did really well -
while the priest companion, Durance, is a horrible and unlikable person, he really believes in and devotes his live to his deity, and his struggle with the fact that she basically used and discarded him makes his character arc the strongest in the game - I couldn't believe that I actually ended up somewhat sympathizing with him in the end.
edit: Oh, I forgot Kaelyn the Dove from MotB. Yes, that's an example of what I was talking about. More of that, though with other deities and other themes would be nice
I find it interesting that "followers need a relationship path that isn't romance" comes up repeatedly, as I haven't done a follower where the majority of their content is locked behind a romance since...oh, maybe Carth and Bastila in Knights of the Old Republic? I remember the reactions to those characters were very different by gender, based on the fact that much of their more pleasant qualities were gated to their romance arc.
Since then, I've always prioritized having a fully-realized arc with a romanceable character even if you weren't romancing them...so yay?
With that Yay! out of the way, @David_Gaider I do think that the mention coming up so often is just to emphasize that companions players romance in RPGs often seem to get more extensive conversation paths than the other companions, and that the same amount of text could be applied to other companions to strengthen bonds in ways other than romance. I won't say that "often" necessarily applies these days (with regards to games you're involved with anyway), but ya gotta remember forumites on here are BG nerds who play and replay (and replay and replay and replay...) games from the 90s and early 00s and their minds are sometimes stuck there. :P
The romances are very important to me. Relationships, and especially romantic ones, are a vital part of life, for most people. A world, even a role-play world, without them seems incomplete.
When my protagonist fights the preverbal dragon, it all means so much more if her lover fights by her side. If she has learned to care for her companions, the combat is no longer just about defeating (insert current evil beast needing a good thrashing) but also about assuring the survival of her companions.
The relationships that I am allowed to explore in the game world are what anchor me there. I need that emotional hook.
I am also a fan of redemption arcs and being able to impact the lives of my companions.
I may be alone here, but I am definitely not tired of humans and elves. Though I am intrigued by characters such as Haer'Dalis, the more beast like a character is the less likely I am to find them appealing as a romance option. Though this doesn’t apply for a friendship option.
Also, I am still a bit miffed that I never got to romance Varric.
When my protagonist fights the preverbal dragon, it all means so much more if her lover fights by her side. If she has learned to care for her companions, the combat is no longer just about defeating (insert current evil beast needing a good thrashing) but also about assuring the survival of her companions.
ME3's ending gets a lot of flak from people (mostly parts that come after this, but still...), yet I found that the placement of people in the end exemplified what you're talking about here in a way that goes beyond just your own selection of a party to come with you.
If you knew your companions (party faves or not) really well, you knew who would go well where and a minimum of people die...if not, it's not like it doesn't magnify your emotional investment to see a bunch of people you've grown close to over the course of (in most cases) two or three games bite it (and might inspire you to reload a save or play through again and optimize that part to make sure you save as many people as possible) and I always really like that about ME3's ending! It rewards knowing everyone really well and knowing who would best be able to do the assigned tasks needed, but it also (emotionally) rewards you for mistakes by giving you more reason to fight even harder in the final leg of the game. I messed up the first time in one particular placement and I thought it was just how things had to be and it devastated me...then I found out I could do it more intelligently and it was so satisfying to go through and get it all right.
I was never able to get very far into Mass Effect. The space setting and gun type weapons, along with the shooting mechanics just didn’t grab me. But this does bring up another point for me. I want to be able to keep both my lover and my best friends alive at the end of the game. I know some people love the tragic endings, but I don’t.
I'm ambivalent, as I've definitely had really amazing experiences with games that are willing to kill off key characters, whether NPC or companion...but yeah I do tend to lean toward wanting to Be The Hero, especially in a D&D game as that's kinda D&D's standard thing, which means the option to save the maximum number of people and get the best ending is something I'll be going for in my first playthrough for sure.
Sorry to just drop in on the conversation but speaking of characters and romances has reminded me of a few thoughts I have had towards characters in games.
I feel like companions in games are always characters of circumstance who meet you and decide to follow you everywhere. Sometimes they have backgrounds that tell you why they are a master of the bow or sword. Sometimes they have a little backstory that lets you know why they happened to be in your path in the first place.
One thing I would like to see is a NPC that is mysterious and has the potential to become a true friend to the player. The movie "The Shawshank Redemption" comes to mind. Shawshank didn't have any romances or even many women at all but the core of the movie was about friendship and life. I have never seen a character that bonds with the player like that.
I would like a character that has conversations with you and your choices could effect weather or not this NPC is just tagging along until something better comes up or he/she is totally dedicated to your cause and wants the best for the group. I would like a character that you could make sacrifices for and play a game of cards with at the local tavern. The information you know about that NPC comes down to what conversation options you choose to pursue throughout the game.
I think it would be cool if you don't really know why the character is continuing to be a part of the group and maybe the character won't continue to be a part of the group if the group personalities and conversations you have do not satisfy that character's personal interests. Eventually you would either part ways or you would understand why they are with the group like you would in the real world when people continue to call each other and decide to do things together.
I think Pillars Of Eternity did a good job of character building but the one thing that is missing is the little things. I know budget and game pacing get in the way but it would really go a long way if characters talked about things that were not front and center of the main story arc. Just little comments about things like architecture, fashion, technology, trends, the weather, childhood fears, ect.
Maybe characters that have truly bonded with the main PC would be more willing to give it their all and would be emotionally connected giving them special bonus damage when the chips are down and the party is in danger of losing a battle. For me, the lack of party members in Icewind Dale really killed the experience for me. The characters do very much matter to me.
Comments
I also want to try everything, the thing is: nobody prevents you from doing that and it increase the re-playability of the game itself.
2. Hard choices combined with immersive experience. I like those in BioWare games, when you need to think, accept the outcome and be aware of the fact that those outcomes may come more than once, sometimes in late game. I know not all of the BioWare decisions and outcomes were great, but there were some certain points that felt great. I want to know the game's universe and characters to know what I did.
3. A fair balance of fighting, talking and exploration. Because I expect more than just one thing from a game. I would like to both see beautiful places, with interesting characters, but I would also like to meet some people there, talk, and know what in this beauty a possible danger may await.
2. Consequences. One thing I quite liked in SoD was the consequences of your actions had an effect on the end game. I liked how the allies I had for the main battle were effected by my earlier quests.
3. Skill & stat checks are nice contributions to role playing as well.
And I'm not about to do that. Yet.
If I was going to continue the conversation, however, I would narrow its focus just a tad. One thing games I've worked on have been pretty well-known for has been their companions -- the folks who join your party and which in and of themselves absorb a great deal of the writing effort. So I'm curious:
1) Do you enjoy these sorts of companions? Is there a single element common to them in RPG's which you simply must have, or which you would prefer to do without?
2) Is there a particular type of companion character you feel hasn't been done (or done enough) and which you'd like to see? You can make this as specific to D&D as a setting or not, as you like.
Variety is important, different personalities, agendas (depending on the story) and alignment of course. I think adding a twist to a companions story is a great idea adding a element of surprise.
Customisation of companions is also a plus. I'm still thinking on this so I'm sure there's more
I know a lot of people are "meh" on the whole romance deal but for me they're sort of required to enter my "top 10 favorite RPG list" and they add another layer to the development between characters. Between Aerie from BG2, Leliana from DA:O, and Gann in NWN2 as a few of my top NPCs, I've had the ability to form deeper bonds with them through romance.
I think, though, for every character that can't be romanced (either they aren't at all or you're not the particular race/gender eligible for a particular romance) some sort of equally long "friendship" quest should exist.
2. I actually would really, really enjoy a female shorty character (with possible romance options if they are included in the game). Someone light-hearted like Alora in BG1. Someone overtly "cute" but possibly having a distraught inner struggle that's covered by that cuteness or maybe an option for them to become hardened and more ruthless through alignment shifts that is counter to their obvious adorable nature.
In Dragon Age: Inquisition I was teased with the pseudo-romance for Scout Harding but then it never went anywhere as it wasn't a real option. None of my favorite games really offer the chance to romance a shorty either. Alora is my favorite character in BG1 but I literally can't find another character like her in any other game. Gnomes are one of my favorite races to play so I'd enjoy having another gnome or halfling as a romance option. I know I'm bias as my favorite D&D character that I use also in CRPGs is Piro Faeren, my pink haired female gnome bard, but I'd love to see a character like the one I've made in a game.
We've had enough elf and human romances to last us a lifetime. I'd love something a tad bit more exotic. Though I, personally, would prefer a female character to fill the role, a male one would work too if that fits your character roster better.
Off Subject: I haven't played SoD yet, btw. Is Glint a character similar to what I've described? I've been trying to find great shorty characters in games for a while and have found so few. The only leads I have atm are Glint in SoD and that halfling ranger in Sword Coast Legends which I haven't played yet either.
Edit: If I could make a request as well I would like to see the relationship start mid-game rather than end-game. Keeping a relationship happening can be just as fun and interesting as starting one.
It is really good not to be followed by a bunch of robots that obey every command without discussion and ignoring completely their descriptions and beliefs.
Imo they are the bread, butter and meat of games like these.
As for companion types, I feel it's most important to have a certain co-dependency going on between them and Charname. As the player I want to need them beyond their pure gameplay based use and in return I want to be able to make an impact on them.
Also, please make sure the companions are not too agreeable ... I want them to bicker and fight.
Bonus points if they get angry because they like Charname so much.
I can't say I've ever put a companion into a game just for that reason. Making them a romance has always been something decided after the rest of their character concept. That doesn't mean one might not perceive it as such, however. But what would cause it to be perceived so? Is it romances with gay options, or romances which receive a lot of attention from the community? Or something else?
Everyone has their favourite characters as they play through an RPG like the ones you've been involved with, and no one character is ever denied that "favourite character" spot when you consider all the players there are out there playing your games. Lots of people love Tiax, and lots of people would no doubt have enjoyed playing an Evil playthrough of BG where they could strengthen their bonds with their favourite tyrant-aspirant with a third person desire to rule all persons from first through third throughout the land! He's not my personal favourite, but I know people who hold that position both in real life and on these very forums, and honestly I'd be really excited if I knew the replay value of a game included unique conversation paths and quests for every companion! I know every single one of us would feel thrilled to know that no matter who we wind up loving best of the companions Beamdog cooks up for us, we can follow a questline to its conclusion that reveals more about that character!
Another element that I really enjoyed that's already been mentioned is if the companion's personal quests/conversation options lets us choose perhaps to shape them? I've always liked the idea from KOTOR of being able to seduce certain characters to the Dark Side (or redeem them to the Light!) and I think in a D&D game in the spirit of Baldur's Gate it would really help the replay value as well if at least some of the Good characters (the romanceable options and more plot-central companions at least!) could be swayed to Evil or at least Evil-tolerating Neutrality for your Evil playthroughs, and vice versa for Good playthroughs with the romanceable and more plot-central Evil companions (in an ideal world, I'd like almost all the companions to be able to be swayed...it's your story after all, making it yours is part of the fun)!
Viconia's redemption came at the very furthest reaches of BG2 in ToB (an especially long journey if she'd been your Good or Neutral party's cleric since the first game!) so it'd be nice if this was based on conversations/personal quests, and again there may be some characters you wonderful folks making the story and companions for us deem uncorruptible/irredeemable, but there always seem to be not enough characters a) of Evil alignment and b) of particular party roles, so it would be cool if you could fill out your ranks as an Evil character with some corruptible Good companions who you bond with and corrupt over time to see the world closer to how your villain views it...to me though, the most satisfying is the redemption arcs! I know it would really increase the replay value to play someone who was a literal redeemer, a Good character adding only the redeemable Evil characters to their party and slowly converting them all to the cause of Good (sounds like a pretty good Achievement pairing too, Redeemer and Corrupter would be fun Achievements on GOG Galaxy or Steam or consoles to aim for on a particular playthrough with a Good and Evil character respectively, aim for an entire party of converts!)
More important than the Redeemable Evil Coupons and the Gotta Corrupt 'Em All ideas above is the first one I emphasize though, I really think it's important to fully flesh out every character and not just the ones you can romance (although I do love replaying for different romances)!
2) A traditional Dwarven Defender hammer-and-shield style fighter and more half-orcs (and/or some actual orcs)! If you're including Genasi as an option for the player to choose, at least one Genasi would be nice! This poll's results seems to show that people want aasimar/tiefling and monstrous race companion options (personally, I think an xvart jester bard would make my day! but more seriously a full-blooded orc or orog would be a really cool barbarian companion, or maybe a gray orc wizard? and M'Khiin is my fave SoD companion by far so take from that what you will), but the poll definitely shows that far and away what most people want is a good solid Dwarf companion (and many of the comments expressed desire for a traditional dwarf rather than a Korgan or a Kagain), and I myself voted Dwarf in that poll!
I think we all want to see at least one
Dwarven Defenderfighter, at least one rogue, at least one cleric and at least one wizard. But traditionally those have been the most popular 4 classes to see spread amongst the companions in BG/BG2 (I think it goes Thief, Fighter, Mage, Cleric, Bard, Ranger, Druid, Paladin, Sorcerer/Monk/Shaman in that order throughout the series, including the EEs, if you count each class of a multiclass separately), so it'd be cool to see a few more of the companion classes less traveled in the new game, whether it's a new Baldur's Gate or just in the spirit of the Infinity Engine D&D games. Obviously Barbarian and Warlock companions would be good since we'll be using the 5e ruleset and those are PH classes we haven't seen before. I mean, even among the options available to a player in BGEE/BG2EE, there are quite a few we didn't see as companions:Thief (Assassin, Swashbuckler, Shadowdancer)
Fighter (Wizard Slayer, Kensai, Barbarian)
Mage (Abjurer, Diviner, Transmuter)
Bard (Jester)
Ranger (Beast Master)
Druid (Avenger, Totemic Druid)
Paladin (Cavalier, Undead Hunter)
Sorcerer (Dragon Disciple)
Monk (Dark Moon Monk)
I know we're using 5e, but I think that's a good place to start when pondering how to keep the new companions fresh while filling party roles!
And as a trans woman I just gotta say, on a personal note: it'd be real cool if one of them was a trans woman. I know Beamdog just weathered a firestorm on that front, but even just having a merchant NPC involved in a couple quests made me so, so happy, and seeing Ed Greenwood come out and say that we have a place in the Realms got me really choked up in the best possible way (even if the hatred that provoked his response was something I'd rather not have had to see and experience as a trans woman who picked up BG in the 90s before I even realized I was trans, I will still always cherish that response).
I was seeing myself in a game with Mizhena, and I for one am always going to be happy that I was thrown even this meager bone in a deluge of games that don't bother to represent me in the least. If a bigger bone was thrown my way in Beamdog's Next Big Thing, I'd be wagging my tail and happily barking for YEARS about it!
But enough about me: just GIVE US SOME DWARVES ENCASED IN ARMOR AND SHIELD LIKE A STEEL TOMB, CRUSHING OUR FOES UNDER HAMMERBLOWS THAT WAKE THE ENTIRE MORNDINSAMMAN FROM THEIR DIVINE REVERIES AND SEND THEM RUSHING TO LEND THEIR THUNDEROUS APPLAUSE FROM BEYOND REALITY IN HONOUR OF THE PEERLESS BATTLE PROWESS OF THEIR FAERÛNIAN CHILD
and, y'know, lemme smooch 'em too All I'll say is roll yourself a male gnome illusionist with bright funky-coloured hair and leave a slot open for a delightful cleric/thief with equally funky hair to sweep you off your little feet! Be the tiny gay gnome rainbow you want to see in the world!
Outside of some more humour-oriented characters in early CRPGs (who were never romance options), I've never seen a CRPG companion who wasn't a complex, fully realized character as a romance option. If anything, romance options tend to get a bit more attention to their character because of the additional conversations/quests involving them (which is why I and others have emphasized the need for friendship/relationship quests for all companions, with romance paths for whichever ones Beamdog opts to write those for).
I also like the Garrus/Tali, Haer'Dalis/Aerie dimension of romances where if you're not romancing someone they have relationships within the party. That really is a cool thing, and I'd love if there was a bit of that in the Next Big Thing from Beamdog!
What about two people that hate each other to begin with, has that been done? I know there's only space for so much dialog in a game so I'm not sure what can and can't be done.
I think when the community focuses on that companions romancibility and nothing else has an impact too.
1) Companions are among the things that make or break a cRPG for me. Take the companions out of a game, and it instantly is much less interesting (which is why I've only ever played through Icewind Dale once, and through the Baldur's Gate games lots and lots of times). As for one thing these companions should have: Lots and lots of personality - this is a video game, and the people you meet and travel with should be memorable. Pillars of Eternity tried to go (with some exceptions) for more subdued, realistic companions, and they aren't nearly as popular as the companions in games like BG2 or Dragon Age: Origins (despite Pillars of Eternity having some great writers as well). I can do without romances, but if they evolve organically, they can be really nice (what I don't like is: "Oh, you hit this specific approval rating? I'm in love with you now!").
2) Something that hasn't been done enough? I feel like, specifically in a D&D setting, there haven't been a lot of convincing clerics. The gods are a big deal in the realms, but even their own clerics rarely mention them in most D&D games - I never got the sense of a deeply faithful cleric and his/her struggle with belief, other gods/churches, their perception by the public etc. - there are so many interesting deities in the realms (and even non-cleric characters could be devoted to some of the more interesting ones), and a lot of them have never been explored at all in video games (for example, I really like the Red Knight - she would make an awesome deity for a potential companion). This is one thing Pillars of Eternity did really well -
edit: Oh, I forgot Kaelyn the Dove from MotB. Yes, that's an example of what I was talking about. More of that, though with other deities and other themes would be nice
Since then, I've always prioritized having a fully-realized arc with a romanceable character even if you weren't romancing them...so yay?
With that Yay! out of the way, @David_Gaider I do think that the mention coming up so often is just to emphasize that companions players romance in RPGs often seem to get more extensive conversation paths than the other companions, and that the same amount of text could be applied to other companions to strengthen bonds in ways other than romance. I won't say that "often" necessarily applies these days (with regards to games you're involved with anyway), but ya gotta remember forumites on here are BG nerds who play and replay (and replay and replay and replay...) games from the 90s and early 00s and their minds are sometimes stuck there. :P
When my protagonist fights the preverbal dragon, it all means so much more if her lover fights by her side. If she has learned to care for her companions, the combat is no longer just about defeating (insert current evil beast needing a good thrashing) but also about assuring the survival of her companions.
The relationships that I am allowed to explore in the game world are what anchor me there. I need that emotional hook.
I am also a fan of redemption arcs and being able to impact the lives of my companions.
I may be alone here, but I am definitely not tired of humans and elves.
Also, I am still a bit miffed that I never got to romance Varric.
If you knew your companions (party faves or not) really well, you knew who would go well where and a minimum of people die...if not, it's not like it doesn't magnify your emotional investment to see a bunch of people you've grown close to over the course of (in most cases) two or three games bite it (and might inspire you to reload a save or play through again and optimize that part to make sure you save as many people as possible) and I always really like that about ME3's ending! It rewards knowing everyone really well and knowing who would best be able to do the assigned tasks needed, but it also (emotionally) rewards you for mistakes by giving you more reason to fight even harder in the final leg of the game. I messed up the first time in one particular placement and I thought it was just how things had to be and it devastated me...then I found out I could do it more intelligently and it was so satisfying to go through and get it all right.
I feel like companions in games are always characters of circumstance who meet you and decide to follow you everywhere. Sometimes they have backgrounds that tell you why they are a master of the bow or sword. Sometimes they have a little backstory that lets you know why they happened to be in your path in the first place.
One thing I would like to see is a NPC that is mysterious and has the potential to become a true friend to the player. The movie "The Shawshank Redemption" comes to mind. Shawshank didn't have any romances or even many women at all but the core of the movie was about friendship and life. I have never seen a character that bonds with the player like that.
I would like a character that has conversations with you and your choices could effect weather or not this NPC is just tagging along until something better comes up or he/she is totally dedicated to your cause and wants the best for the group. I would like a character that you could make sacrifices for and play a game of cards with at the local tavern. The information you know about that NPC comes down to what conversation options you choose to pursue throughout the game.
I think it would be cool if you don't really know why the character is continuing to be a part of the group and maybe the character won't continue to be a part of the group if the group personalities and conversations you have do not satisfy that character's personal interests. Eventually you would either part ways or you would understand why they are with the group like you would in the real world when people continue to call each other and decide to do things together.
I think Pillars Of Eternity did a good job of character building but the one thing that is missing is the little things. I know budget and game pacing get in the way but it would really go a long way if characters talked about things that were not front and center of the main story arc. Just little comments about things like architecture, fashion, technology, trends, the weather, childhood fears, ect.
Maybe characters that have truly bonded with the main PC would be more willing to give it their all and would be emotionally connected giving them special bonus damage when the chips are down and the party is in danger of losing a battle. For me, the lack of party members in Icewind Dale really killed the experience for me. The characters do very much matter to me.