@@DavidCDrake I play video games so I prefer windows. As someone who started with MS DOS though I do miss the feeling of control. I absolutely hated W95 when it came out because it felt so restrictive.
@@PedroGomes-cx7ku danny trejo did such a great job on raul for sure. My favorite companion in any Fallout game is either Sulik or Gage. But i really, really like a lot of them. Ede, Piper, Raul, Boone, Cait, Curie, MaCready, Longfellow, Valentine and Codsworth are all so fantastic.
They definitely feel more alive, my issue with Fallout 4 companion is they didn't feel different outside 1 specific ability. In FNV some companions were damn near useless with certain weapon types and if I'm not mistaken not all could wear power armor
I have to say romancing a foul-mouthed Irish gal by fast-traveling in my shorts in Fallout4 was an unexpectedly fun and funny experience that I will remember.
I think companions in first person games usually benefit from a one-button control, just a single ping to say walk here, interact with this, shoot this enemy, etc. Kind of like how pings work in multiplayer shooters except they actually listen lol
The problem with that is you can only really point at specific objectives, and can't really affect their more general behaviors. It's a bit long in the tooth, but I'd point to the AI commands in Ace Combat 5 as a good sort of middle-ground: you basically only have four orders (tied to the D-Pad) you can issue: one's a toggle to allow/disallow allies from using their special weapons; one is for them to just go wild attacking enemies; one is for everyone to spread out; and one is for everyone to gather up near you. In a typical first-person RPG you could swap out that special weapon toggle for your one-button command pointing at specific tasks (go here, attack this, use that); then for the three general behaviors they could be something like, "stay close and cover me, " "spread out and flank," and I dunno... "use you judgement?" With the latter maybe being unique to each companion? EG a melee companion'd just run into the thick of things; a sniper companion might pull back and stay in a fixed location until combat is over, etc.
It's not an RPG, but you could take an in-depth command system from a game like Operation Flashpoint (ArmA: Cold War Crisis) even though I'm referencing a super old game so there's probably a newer, better system out there. But it had a whole menu of radio commands you could issue to your squad to get them to interact with nearly everything in a map. That works because it's a PC game so you have the whole keyboard available, but it wouldn't be too hard to make it into menus and sub-menus with a controller.
@@lhfirex With the advent of AI maybe we can finally get a way to program companions that works better and is more intuitive. I see a future where we can just talk to companions and tell them what to do with voice commands.
“Companion, shoot that enemy!” *the companion suddenly stands up from cover, walks through the firing line to stand directly beside the enemy you pinged*
One game I think impelemented Companions well was Wasteland 3 as you have a squad and each party member can specalize in a skill, so you have oneguy for hacking, one for lockpicking etc... It really made having a party feel meaningful imo.
Same. It made each party member be more than just a guy with a LMG or a sniper rifle. Make one a medic and a weird scientist while the other acts as a mechanic and leader. Compared to Fallout, it felt different in that one did get to create those two custom companions and let them have a role that wasn't just being fit for combat or support in a fight.
I loved Arcanum's companions, especially the voice actor ones, Virgil, Magnus and Raven were really good - my first time playing Arcanum had the funniest bi-polar Virgil ever, turned hostile when I accidentally threw a newspaper in his face, renders himself unconscious trying to heal me while my tech aptitude was too high, ah memories.
Probably my #1 favorite inter-companion interaction was in Pillars when Edér was asking if it's ok to pet Sagani's fox, then later on they're talking about the wound from petting the fox 😂
Only issue is Valhior. Very intresting concept for a character, but comes waaay too late into the game and has a fraction of dialoges and interaction that other companions have.
I have never really thought about it concisely before, but you hit one of my largest gripes - when the game forces you to play a character other than the main character, or forces a specific character into the party. There have been games in the past that forced the player to play a portion of the game as a side-character that I did not like, and have stopped playing the game due to that. I prefer games that have the main character as a blank slate. I despise when the character I am playing makes a decision, that I would not have chose, without my input. Horror games in general are basically off the table for me because of this, as well as a bunch of action-rpg style games.
This is something I wish modders thought about a little more. I absolutely love using modded companions for games like Skyrim, but I don’t need them to all be in love with my character. Sometimes I want to roleplay a character that’s an old warrior, maybe someone that is dealing with grief. If my only options for a companion are people being sarcastic and flirty, I’m better off without companions entirely.
You didn't talk about it, but I really liked that you had leadership skills in the outer worlds. My favorite though was in new Vegas, having higher charisma increased the damage of your companions. It gave you a chose of how independent you wanted your pc to be as a personality. It also, made things like speech feel less useless, except for a few checks you might get once every hour or so in the game.
I love how in Kotor 1 your companions would talk to each other and in some instances argue and be hostile. An example would be Canderous, he was a mandalorian and his people attacked and destroyed the planet of one of your other party members so there was always this tension and hostility when you had both with you.
Regarding the point about companion romance, I think it can sometimes be useful to separate "companion romance in RPGs as a concept" from "the current default format of companion romance in RPGs". For discussion purposes, we could refer to the current default format (and its issues mentioned in this video) as "the BioWare formula", but "the BioWare formula" is not the only time romance pops up around RPG companions across games as a medium -- for a concrete example, Planescape Torment's characterization of the protagonist's past relationships gives a *very* interesting layer of complication to the moment where it asks the player "do you or do you not kiss back Annah?"
I always prefer controllable companions, but mostly not through real-time micro-management but by giving instructions that they follow until told otherwise. I like the advanced system in the first Dragon Age where you can instruct them to act differently depending on the situation, in effect creating if conditions for their actions. It's a lot of fun.
I think it's interesting how Larian does companions in DOS2 and BG3. The companions have their backgrounds and their default builds reflect that, but you can respec them to be completely different so you don't run into the issue of "I like this character but their build is redundant with my player character so it doesn't make sense to have them in my party".
I've fond memories of immediately hacking into my new savegames of Baldur's Gate / Baldur's Gate 2 to change characters' classes / builds to something I liked better.
It's a great feature! Also, for some characters, I feel like it's practically expected you're supposed to do it. The best example I can give is Minsc, whose default Ranger package (including six basic Ability Scores) doesn't even remotely fit what we know about him at all. It really feels like you're expected to rebuild him to what each individual player personally feels is the most accurate 5th edition rendition of his character (since he has only appears in past games with quite different rules). And, by the time you encounter Minsc relatively late in the game, you would already be very familiar with BG3's 5th ed based character system.
Not a fan tbh, though BG3 is still pretty great. I suppose it's possible to ignore the feature but mostly makes me feel like I have to min/max everyone not just my main. They're (almost) all lvl 1 when you get them so it's not like you don't have plenty of customization options.
Recently I've been playing "Pathfinder: Kingmaker" and after hearing you the past few videos I feel like you would like that game quite a bit, lol. The companions in the game generally work the way you described here, which I also find pretty cool.
+1 for kingmaker.. Makes me miss Birthright, an old AD&D module.. A lot of folks will recommend the sequel pathfinder game, but for me those characters just didn't land. kingmaker is the one
Thanks for mentioning the romance part. I remember that during the Fig campaign for Pillars 2 there was some talk about romancing, whether it should be implemented and how and while it gave me high hopes I feel some of the companions came off quite horny (Serafen and Tekehu!). I realized that I didn't really miss romance in the first game and I quite like how companion quests help describe the world and its themes (Sagani!), I really liked Eder's quest - even though it felt "unfinished" and kinda depressing, it really fit the game and its themes - I love how at some points the game never explicitly states the truth, but you can try to guess it (but you'll never know for sure), I also love how it tends to ponder whether stuff has have have meaning and what it means for us if it just doesn't. Also, Eder wears my favorite piece of original equip (in any game ever) - his armor - the thought that his brother might be still looking after him still makes me teary-eyed. Or maybe it wasn't his brother but Eothas! I guess we'll never know. Aaand the armor works just perfectly with him as a tank. And you can upgrade it and use it forever. I think it's brilliant. But I'm getting too off topic. Great video, thanks!
Thanks for talking about the romance stuff. I like it when it fits , for example I somewhat think mass effect had really good tied in the way you start to become interested in each other. I always thought while you can hit on all those people it is a tool to include more people and canonically you grew close to all of them but only with one you fell in love and the other never had the feelings despite the Dialog options being there. But recently I played Rogue Trader and it was really weird to me how you can romance so many different people in a setting where everything is grim and dark and all hope is lost. And especially how it broke the character writing for some. You had this Alien Woman who literally calls you monkey because you are primitive to them and how you are just barely above an animal to her just so you can romance her in the first private conversation you have with her. I sat there and realized I might not be horny enough to understand how that would work but it felt to me sooo out of place I couldnt understand how they would do that other than as a 'thirst-trap' for horny people.
That's pretty weird, since I believe the some studio that made the Pathfinder CRPGs also made Rogue Trader. In Pathfinder: Kingmaker the companions that can be romanced atleast feel somewhat believable and takes some time before it happens, (Well atleast a few of them, some are more blatant and in your face.)
You can try to romance the Eldar but she will hate you for it. She really doesn't like humans and won't even hold your hand. I kinda liked that in the sense that it felt fresh (compared to other games). The conclusion of her romance is quite platonic and asexual, you could even say that you just become friends - but the game communicates well that she doesn't let people get close to her, so it does feel special. Kinda missed that in BG 3, where everyone is just horny when you just want a friend/bro (looking at you Gale).
The greatest time I have ever had with companions was while playing Persona 3 FES. All the companions are AI-driven and it added a lot of personality to the characters. It was also a lot of fun managing your team, giving them orders and helping, when they got into trouble. This really reflected the core idea of the main character, I think. To be a good leader and responsible for the people that depend on you. Feels completely different to play Portable version of the game, where you can control all the characters. While I appreciate the agency, I think that sometimes it can take away from a game some portion of fun or narrative ideas.
aw, you should have worn a Nuka Cola shirt :) Also, an honorable mention to the greatest companion of all games. Ian from Fallout, who on the pro side can carry EVERYTHING for you but on the con side will shoot you in the back on burst mode.
its weird, but ive been playing Stranded Alien Dawn and got hooked on it. Its a Rimworld-like, but had no idea it was until too late(30 hours deep), and i never knew how much of an idea generator these games are on top of the journey towards automation. I just love all the "drama" they involve themselves in while im slowly reaching towards my main goal. Its just so much color for the characters and it really makes me think about how those interactions would go with diligent care and effort towards the weird breakups and love triangles that happen naturally in-game.
Oh yes, companions in crpgs. So crucial element, suprisnigly hard to done right ( tho also suprisingly hard to fubar completly, as long as basics are done right ). Think about it - on top of all that Tim said in this video there are also design dilemas like : - Are companions respecable ? Can they change class/skills at will, not at all, or only under certain conditions (like doing personal quest ) - How spaced are companions in story/world of the game. Are they all front loaded (BG2 does this IMHO really well), or some can be only added late in the game ( wich runs the risk of player not wanting to mess with their already tried & tested party ) - Are some companions mutaly exclusive or blocked by some other factor ( like handmaieden/disciple and Mira/Hanharr in KoTR2 ). This limits player choice, but also encurages replayability - Do companions ( especialy in class based systems ) have their own unique powers/skills/gear, exclusive to them, even if the player have same class as them ? And probably many more
I got into Outer Worlds and I like companions there a lot (namely Parvati). They don't get in the way too much and you don't have to control them all the time but they intervene when it's important quest stage (like when I quicksaved and tried to kill that guy in charge of Edgewater while doing the deserters quest :D). And if you want you can ask them all the questions about them while on the spaceship
I like how Fallout 2 improved on the companions control and pretty much added things Tim already wanted for Fallout, but then modded Fallout and 2 with Restoration patch are still the greatest old RPGs to me. In Fallout 2 it is especially useful to give everyone ranged weapons (Sulik is really good with 223 pistol) and tell them to stay close both in combat and movement, they mostly only go where you go for tactical positioning or running away or to swarm the enemy, it is always fun.
6:56 - Companions talking with each other. I remember being totally blown away when getting in a lift in Mass Effect 1 with Garrus and Wrex and listening to them jab at each other because of what the Taurens were responsible for. Immersion +100. As for romancing, I couldn't agree more with the sentiment of "jeez, everyone is so horny..." It's jarring to think that everyone who follows you finds your character that sexy. This is the realm for mods imo; romancing characters that have been originally intended to not become romance options for players.
Something that I like about the companions/characters in Baldur's Gate 3 is that they all have a common thread in the narrative and also have their own stories.
This is unrelated to the video, but I wanted to say it somewhere. From about 2021 to about 6 months ago, I went through a bad time in my life. Fallout: New Vegas helped me keep it together through that time, being at times my only source of mental comfort. It helped me get through that time, and I think its the only reason I'm still alive. I want to thank you for making the game that saved me.
Thanks for the advice on video game development as well, I'm using it a lot in a dnd campaign. It's not entirely applicable, but it's really nice to have!
@@DonMcGlass Yeah, Tim did the original Fallout and part of Fallout 2. With that said, he and Boyarsky and the team created the franchise, so deserve their share of thanks even if the later Bethesda games are different.
I really like this video. I am going thorough Fallout 4 right now and i found out that this is what i am doing. I love having Dogmeat with me in general, but when i was checking out the part about the underground i had Valentine. I just headed to the Institute and i went to take Piper with me because she has a real interest in the Institute - but then she got left behind. 😄 *** I have enjoyed the 'feedback' of "Soandso liked that' or disliked that. I am playing my character the way i want to, but i am getting to learn about these companions this way.
I have an idea (not sure if any game does this) that to limit the amount of companions you have is to make it where some companions hate or dislike each other and will not join you if you have that companion. Here's an example I made up. One companion loves one faction while hates the other faction, but you a companion who is a member of that faction that the other companion hates so the other companion doesn't join you. And maybe you can have both companions if you can convince them to pretend the other one doesn't exist and as long as you don't piss off either of them. That's my idea anyway.
Some of my fondest memories are dealing with the unexpected results of fallout 2 companions decisions in combat. No marcus the bandit has 3 health and is standing beside some farmers, you dont need to use your mingun.
You are a great gift to the community by your contributions, thank you for your contributions (your videos) and all the work you have done on your games. Your work will be repaid in kind
Whenever I need to make an evil decision to kill a nice poor defenseless character, I usually command my companion to do the kill so that my own hands stay clean.
IMO, the ideal number of companions is 2-3 times the number of companion "slots" you have. So in a game with a party size of 4 (PC + 3 companions), the ideal number would be 6-9. In general, the more ways there are for companions to die or leave the party, the closer to the top of that range the number should be.
Every RPG I play i find myself wishing it had a companion system like Mass Effect. Two at a time, good selection, inter-companion banter and good environment comments it really brought the games to life for me and now I haven't been able to look at other games the same since.
See Tim, there's an important fact you forgot to take into consideration regarding romance. Which is that the player character is so hot and irresistable that every walk of life can't help but want to marry them.
I always use them, I like companions, I like the banter with and between them but mostly because of their reactions, they're an extension of the world, and the first thing I do is to force click'em (thank you warcraft 2). In Pillars1 there's an interaction with Pallegina, and don't remember if after the click mayhem of between Kana where she starts to...sing!? I love companions. I like to manage them, their inventory and tailoring their build, I would never play a cleric, companion...that's your job! I would never play dwarves, and here you go Sagani in Pillars, my preferred companion ever.
You say you should have more companion choices than companions you bring with you, which I agree with, but I really dislike "shelved" companions. I often end up always using the same companions, unless the game gives me incentive to rotate them (as I can rotate wounded bros in Battle Brothers). This shelf of unused companions usually results in problems when suddenly their quest comes into play when you almost forgot about them (as in BG3, if you forget about Wyll and don't care about him, things happen but I really couldn't care less). If companions actually leave instead of being shelved, I think it's way better (Colony Ship kind of does that for instance).
The game could also balance it, so that enemy factions will send more enemies depending on how many companions you have. Where a solo player wouldn't find many enemies, as the enemy factions find that they don't need to send too people to take care of one lone hero. Each companion could add like 2 extra enemies per enemy encounter. A really smart game, could also make sure those extra two are build to counter the companion in question. E.g. a tank companion could trigger two high damage dealers or add tank armour mitigation modifiers.
Hey Tim, there is an aspect of companions that you didn't touch on that I'd like to hear your opinion on. That is the players influence over the personality and outcomes of the companions storyline. Using two examples from the Pathfinder game Wrath of the Righteous, you have one companion who you can steer towards becoming good or going back to being pure evil by your interactions with them. Alternatively you have a companion who is a sociopath who no matter what will always end the story as one, while you can seem like you make progress, in the end they see you as a threat and you either support their desires or you put them down. Do you think companions should be influenced by player characters or do you prefer their personalities be a core part of them that the player has to accept or just leave them behind?
The way Baldur's Gate 3 let you respec any companion to any class they didn't start as was kind of nice because it let you just take companions you want to find out more about or want to hear banter from. I guess it has the downside of having them feel less set in stone, less who they are. If you respec say Lae'zel to Cleric, something about it feels off but at least you got to see how she is, whereas if you couldn't respec someone you might never want to pick them up in any playthrough.
Interestingly enough, Fallout 1 & 2 informed my thoughts on companions early. I've always found CRPGs overwhelming when I have to control every party member. Having a couple followers that I can talk to but otherwise follow their own combat strategies just works better for me - independent of real time vs turn based. Dragon Age: Origins and DA2 really innovated by allowing me to setup my party members' tactics then let them do their thing (with occasional direct inputs). The Outer Worlds hit a similar comfort level and, along with other things, warranted four full playthroughs at release! I love these videos and getting hear the thoughts behind certain party decisions. But just saying, I've finished every Fallout game (except Tactics), most of them many times, but have never finished a CRPG besides DA:O.
Last year, I begun playing through the BG Enhanced Editions and actually stuck with it after half a dozen times of not being able to because I started RPing more instead of treating the RPG as a checklist of things to do. A large part of that was playing as a dumb half-orc fighter that was being discriminated against (it's a lot easier to replace the "something is special and a bit frightening about you" in those games with orc racism than I thought it would be). And they went out of their way to pick up anyone else that they felt was discriminated against. Evil drow cleric that wants to be left alone and is constantly fighting for her life, join the group! Wild mage who's being hunted for being different (and dangerous) - I have to protect her. It made the game a lot more fun for me. Regarding romance, I have similar complaints that everyone ends up being player-sexual in some games and that detracts from the character in a lot of ways. That being said, I think companion relationships are super important. Neeshka from NWN2 is by far the most important part of that game for me and, despite not being romanceable, had a lot more impact to my personal playthroughs than the handful of romances that do exist.
My favorite companion system ever in a first person game is New Veags with the JIP C&C mod. I can make EVERYONE stop and wait by holding a button without the game pausing. No dialog tree, no intrusive menu. I can go through the dungeon myself without anyone getting in the way or making stealth harder or saying some stupid quip after I pick something up. It's not perfect obviously since i would like them to join me, but unless companions become life-like they will always be combersome in first person games. To me anyway.
I think it's interesting that, when discussing romance, your first impulse was to describe it as requiring NPCs to hit on the player. Reminds me of BG3 where they do just that -- and, like you said, if feels weird. But *WHY* is it that the NPCs have to initiate the romances in the first place? It strikes me that pretty much every RPG I've played with romances in it has those romances begin with NPCs flirting with the PC -- why can't everyone just be aro/ace until or unless the player initiates something? Is there any particular reason, do you think, why romances are typically designed this way?
The main reason companions initiate romance is player discovery. If you spend a lot of time (i.e. a lot of money) making a feature, you want to player to interact with it. Even more, the person/company paying you wants that feature used, otherwise their money was “wasted”. That’s why most features, whether it’s romance or crafting or base building, is put directly into the player’s path so they know it’s there and interact with it.
@@CainOnGames It's sad the people with the money have such little faith in peoples intelligence and curiosity, it seems to ruin a lot of art and entertainment.
@@RancidZombieGuts I don't think it's a "people with the money" problem. It really hurts when people completely miss out on something you put a lot of effort into because you didn't point it out. Indie games and game mods do this kind of thing too.
@@ChadVulpes People always find hidden things in games though, even if a lot of people don't find everything straight away, lots of people will, and finding it themselves will make it feel more special, rather than a checklist of all the content the game has because it blatantly points everything out to you.
@@ChadVulpesAnd that applies to other things in games too. My first thought is Story/quest branches that only really happen after seeing most of the content. Which is understandable, if disappointing.
Thank you for the video! Regarding companion gameplay and the "cover the bases" property of a well designed companion system: Do you believe that the player should be able to build a party that can unlock all the possible solutions for quests? E.g. should the player controlled party always have at least one character with a skill/trait at max value, with the right affiliations, other other prerequisites to use a specific solution? It offers the players more choices but also could harm replayability (if all paths are open to the party). Anyhow, thank you again for all your work on these! Have a great day!
Fallout 4 went above and beyond with its Companions, especially with how they change to more you get to know them. And there are also some who don't have a quest or romance which I like, sometimes it's good just to have a friend or two who doesn't ask you for help/advice.
then they just forgor how to make good companions in starfield. im always kind of down on FO4 but it definitely did companions right. like one of the only things they learned from FNV
Hey Tim, very cool video! I was thinking about using companions to win in a game and was wondering: How do you mechanically support a full-speech playthrough? You mention supporting that kind of playthrough in all of your RPGs, but what goes into the mechanics of that? Is it just good writing? How do you support the speech skill? Is there anything that goes into avoiding failing a check by pure chance? I see people complain about that last one the most, where you do the right answer and then fail the talking route by pure RNG. Would love your thoughts on making a good speech playthrough and speech mechanics!
Some of my favorite companions in the games ive played are: Korgan Bloodaxe from bg 2. ' -Drink hail! Wassail fer all. I be curious friends. Im scouring fer a band of desperate men to aid me in all galant task. Ye look like you keep undertakers in a brisk trade. Have ye courage and time fer a tale? -Me axe be bloody ready. -I best be paid well fer this. -Aye now this be more like it. The first to disobey me orders gets an axe through their skull. -They do all the work. And we ends up with the gold, the book, the loot and the satisfaction of kicking their tails. Ahhh. A good day. Lol know all these and more from memory. Virgil, Arcanum. -Here you are the chosen one, err the living one and i cant even remember who you are. supposed to be. Magnus Arcanum, People say they hear strange noises at night. Moaning, clanking of chains, muffled screaams. Loghaire Arcanum -As a human his first thought was, what can i use this for. When it should have been what cost is its use? Gar Arcanum, -Gar worlds smartest orc not professor of mathematics. Sulik fallout 2 -What can we and i do for you? -Grampy bone is strong spirit. Keep him close. Easier to touch his spirit that way. -Sis went trading in another village and never come back. We and i go look for her. -Drank like a fish. Got POed. Spirits of anger and chaos pop out and now we have to pay some coin to make it right. So many great companions in the games ive played. So much fun.
Ugh, RPG romance. The first Witcher game turned sexual encounters into a literal game of collecting baseball cards, and I can’t in-see that now in any sort of romance/sex mechanic in games. As much as I love Mass Effect, the romance in those games is incredibly perfunctory. You pour player actions into one companion so that at the end of the game you can watch an optional cutscene where two plastic dolls mash against each other briefly. Romance should definitely not be a case of “put in the designed amount of tokens to receive a reward.” Romance is a narrative tool, and making it mechanical and transactional is immature, amateurish and degrading.
I find it annoying how a lot of games don't work a narrative into why you split your party to do a quest. So there's this powerful demon in a cave and out of these seven great friends that you have, you decide to risk your life by bringing only two of them while rest sit in a tavern and suck air? There should either be systems where bringing too many companions is detrimental(too much XP being split, stat decreases etc) or be a narrative that enforces that the rest of the companions stay behind(they defend the tavern from monsters so that you have somewhere to come back to). Most games don't keep that in mind and it really pulls me out of the experience when I happen to think about it.
I really like the way cyberpunk 2077 handled romance. It was really well integrated into the quest structures. I was really happy with that. I also wish that New Vegas had kept some more of its romance features like the side quest with Cass, fleshed Lucy out more, arcade, or made Sarah more fleshed out. Same thing for female protags too. I guess theres a lot that would have to change but it would have added some more depth to characters, I think.
my problem with companions is that the devs won't give you the guys you want to follow you organically and instead push upon you some fancy archetypes. i want sir cauthrien who wants to do good but troubled by wrong loyalties and not zevran who's just a gun for hire or sten who we can't reasonably judge to do our biddings. i want calisca sent to us by fate and not some total randoes standing around just to be approached by the player. i want that second in command of some guy who messes with us for the keep or something. there's this genuine believable moment and shadow of doubt when we kind of want to say - cmon, dude, you know your boss is wrong, you can do good with us. but certainly not devil of caroc who is presented in such a way that there's literally no (in-game/in-character) reason to take her in our party. she's just like morinth (at least that is what we can deduct atm).
Regarding balance for solo vs full party play, aside from the implicit incentive of XP/gold/loot splitting letting you pour more power progression into one character (I was personally never a fan of party XP splitting), Larian had an interesting take in Divinity: Original Sin 1 and 2 with the Lone Wolf perk you could get on characters that would apply major bonuses, including to the action points to equalize the action economy, when those characters were currently in a 1 or 2 person party. That ended up making Lone Wolf overpowered but I think that was more a tuning issue with the magnitude of the bonuses, and I did like the general idea of what they were going for. E.g. even if you wanted to keep combat balance and action economy much more intact than Lone Wolf did, you could let solo characters diversify their skill set while still capping their vertical progression in any one skill at a similar level to before. And in combat you can partly rely on the action economy to counterbalance the power of such a diversified solo character since if you use an action point for one thing (backstab), you can't use it for another thing (cast a spell).
I think my first experience with companions was either The Crescent Hawks Inception or The Lost Vikings. They made it feel as if Eric was the lead but my "main character" in my brain was Baleog because he had the weapons. Yet you couldn't obviously, even play the game without constantly switching between the three characters. Of course then there was Hard Nova, and Strike Force. Thing is, after you got those companions in your party, sure their one higher skill than others allowed you to progress, but then that's it. Eventually, everyone could play the roll and the companion was just part of the collective group. I think this same mentality was placed into Star Ward The Old Republic. I really really liked the companions you made in the game and each one really felt like their own individual. But first, and this is going back a long time, When it came to the companions Special "I got to do this somewhere else, all by myself " mission and they returned to tell me, I was like MAN! I wanted to be there, I wanted to at least see them do all this and even experience that story and get involved in it. But no. That was a huge bummer to me and felt like having a companion with such a background was wasted. Later on, each companion could take the role specific to other characters you found. ANYONE could be the Tank ANYONE could be the healer or Additional DPS. With crafting and skill sets becoming a total mess, i just gave up on the game because the fundamental part I loved, The companions, their uniqueness and specific rolls, were taken away from me. My main character was STILL the focus, but in a massive universe, it wasn't just always about me. Now I've never played a fallout game, but I remember your companions always got killed or got you killed.
I really don't like when you can use your companions' skills to compensate for areas you're weak in. A well rounded party with characters that are strong in different ways always feels like it's equivalent to having one super character with little to no weaknesses. Dampens replayablility A LOT and not feeling your weaknesses takes away from role play for me.
Agree 100% with your discussion of romances with companions. Far too many games have characters that jump at a romance just because you are nice to them or complete their companion quest.
I think it matters a lot more that they are well written than any of the things you have brought up. I'm inclined to take a well written companion with me even if they suck at combat. As for being essential I think this is also a case of writing, with sufficient justification for them to be there, and not just forcing the pc to yes man, but having extremely bad consequences for turning them down or killing them, for example if you kill the priest that can banish the demon you'll fight a buffed demon.
About the romance: I don't think it has to be necessarily horny. Bethesda has some romances (and from the games that I played, I prefer the ones in FO4), but they're pretty sex less (other than the lover's embrace effect after sleeping there is almost no notion of doing anything physical). That said, I think is possible to be more or less horny depending on the companion itself. Some may have little to no interest on sex, some may only care about sex, or some may evolve from one to the other. There are many options when it comes to companions romance, but I don't think it needs to be physical to be successful, memorable nor interesting.
I personally feel like tactical squad-based shooters like Ready or Not or classic Rainbow Six are probably the best way to handle companion control as a first person game. I guess the problem is that it's still a middle ground between normal AI companions and controllable ones with twice the work.
I really like, when you get lore depth with companions, a few notable DnD CRPG's likes to invent factions for side quests that have no part in the main quest.... And I usually just skip that dialogue and solve them for xp... The universal sign for a bad side quest. I like when companions break the character creation rules a bit, so i could not have made that character as a main.... Just for spice, and something new to explore.
Please don't edit out the Windows pop-up noises... now my best friend and I say, "Thank you, Windows," every time our computers make noise because of you!
Played tons of CRPGs and there are a few things that makes me detest companions; real time combat (with or without pause function, doesn't matter), giga yank threat handling (my most common example being: your healer either instantly getting all the mob aggro at the start of combat even though kept in the backline or from just 1 healing spell even though all the enemies prior were fully engaged in combat with your actual meatshields) haven't seen a CRPG that nails the balance of that yet, and not being able to customize your companion builds to a degree where a few or more become redundant or unplayable (due to alignment issue combo'd with locked class) just because you wanted your main character to be that class. Probably a few more things I can't think of right now and the video already brought up the horniness problem....
I don't think you've ever mentioned the Persona games before, but in terms of games where "If the main character dies, it's game over", I think they've done it better than any other, probably even better than Baldur's Gate 1-2. Might be worth your while to check out 3 under that lens, because 3 was designed with the clear goal of "This is your character and these are your companions", baked into it. For better or for worse. You can't control your companions: Why would you be able to? They're not your automotous robots, you're their leader and you can give directions, but they act themselves. If you die, it's Game Over: Even if they're still alive, maybe they can win without you, maybe they can solve the whole story without you. But for you, you're dead, that's it. You don't get to see it. Game over. Ultimately, both of those are fantastic concepts and both of them were not super well recieved as gameplay features, so Persona 4 walked them back a little and Persona 5 got rid of them pretty much entirely, but in terms of the pure vision of "This is the character YOU control and this is HIS story" I think Persona 3 is extremely interesting. Hell, the entire narrative is structured around that character's coming of age and learning about connections with humanity. It's probably not your kind'a game in general, but I think you'd find that aspect interesting. EDIT: To clarfiy, why I rate it higher than something like BG1+2. In BG it's just a narrative gimmick, Resurrection is canon in BG, but your character can't be resurrected because of their special background. You could remove that detail from the background and let the player character be resurrected and very little meaningful would change. Particularly when Saevarok breaks the rules and comes back regardless. Your party members are still completely controlled (which I prefer), and there's no emphasis on the gameplay systems as giving insight into this as your character's world, it's just a narrative gimmick, it's why the Bhaalspawn are becoming extinct in a world with resurrection.
I think it's perfectly okay to not balance for solo play. Many solo players enjoy the challenge, or prefer stealth, which is difficult with companions anyway. I think as long as its not overbearing, its ok to have solo play be difficult. How WOULD you do stealth with companions? Ive seen a few approaches, but do you have any wisdom or considerations to share on the matter?
If you can stand watching bleary-eyed grungy Tim, I talk about some of my half-finished games (I call them toys) here: ua-cam.com/video/mHMFG8uvOb0/v-deo.html
Idk why but i never liked companion combat, it broke immersion for me cause they are immortal and cannot die. But i always add them in my party for the story elements. So its kind of double edged sword :/ 6:40 is a very good point of why
Always liked Virgil. Good arc and interesting to talk to. Really anchored Arcanum for me. How was Virgil developed? And was the intent always to be the player's anchor to the world? Or was that just my experience.
Yeah i agree with doing companions the way you describe it (no direct control over them, player does dialogue etc). I think the limit of companions at the same time should be 2 or 1 (combat balance). In a game like fallout new vegas or f4 1 is good. And maybe add an extra like rex or ede (small robot or dog). But in a game like Arcanum 2 people is better. Romancing is awesome. F4 did it great. I agree that companions should not be needed (only for their own quests). And they should not be unkillable for the player. And the game should work well without playing with companions.
I liked how they did it in BG3 with the romance system being like some hidden point based affinity system which prompts flirting options which you can pursue and then it develops through the main story and the companion quests even more. Sure it was a bit unpolished on release but concept wise I think it's really well made. Another such game with excellent romance with companions for me was DA:Inquisition which took a little bit of a different approach having a more restrictive way of handling it in the sense of sexual preference since you can't romance any character with any playable character, some have male or female preferences, and some may have had both but I do not remember.
That’s interesting because I felt that BG3 was way too heavy handed with how it handled romance, and I just felt that there was a plain over abundance of romantic encounters. I think BG3 is amazing but it feels overly horny to me in a way that makes the world feel so artificial just to please the player. It really takes me out of the role playing experience. And whenever anyone talks about BG3 companions they always talk about them in the context of sex or romance, never friendship. I was craving the experience of being part of a fellowship but instead I just felt like I was being mercilessly hit on all the time lol. I don’t hate romances in gaming as a rule, it’s not my favorite thing but I did engage with romance in Mass Effect and Dragon Age Origins and I felt it really added to the story in those games while also feeling natural, and those games still had plenty of purely platonic characters to balance it out. For some reason BG3’s approach to romances just really didn’t do it for me.
I havent played BG3. I have began to avoid romance options because the moment I understand the mechanics I feel like a creep applying them. This is one place where a highly scripted story beats an adaptive one for me.
I noticed you didn't talk about evil companions, Often in games a good/neutral playthrough there are 6 or so companions to choose from but if you are doing an evil playthrough there is normally only one and it makes evil playthroughs feel less fleshed out. Evil playthroughs also tend to lack unique quests and it feels like it was an afterthought. Is this due to budget, time, analytics (few people want to do evil playthroughs), lack of ability of the developer to put themselves in the shoes of an evil character, or something else?
I think it honestly comes down alot to the fact, most people are not going to choose the "evil" route compared to the "good guy" route. So unless the game is entirely about playing the bad guys, such as Dungeon Keeper. It is kind of a wasted investment of resources to put just as much focus on a much more niche path of play, compared to the overall more played path. That's just how I see it atleast.
I think I fall somewhere in the middle when it comes to romance. I enjoy it in games when it's optional but agree it can go overboard and I don't like it shoved in my face. I like the way it was handled in Fallout 4, where you had to spend a lot of time with a companion before the "flirt" option showed up, and it was just that, an option. If you didn't want to flirt you could choose to be friends, and then that was the end of it. And iirc in Fallout New Vegas, the companions had preferences right? so it wasn't like everyone was automatically "playersexual."
Companions for me mean a new way to play the game, if done correctly, such as in Outer Worlds. You skill yourself as a tinkerer, collecting and upgrading gear that you then distribute. Effectively, instead of min maxing yourself, you are doing that for your companions. It can have a great payoff if done right. Reminds me of the Eridanos slug boss encounter, where, on the highest difficulty, I just entered and stood there for 10 seconds as my companions gunned it down. Great payoff for playing this way, The problem is if a game forces you to loose your companions temporarily and solo fight, that cripple the enjoyment as the game is suddenly forcing you to play in a different style. This is only the mechanics, the characters also need to have interesting stories, but its something I never had to worry about from Obsidian. If curious, this 25 second clip is how the slug looked like with a good companion setup on hardest survival - ua-cam.com/video/yACVuVfe2yg/v-deo.html
Dragon Age: Inquisition is the only game I've played that's pulled off romance well. Each companion is thoroughly fleshed out as a character and most of them are only possible to romance if the PC is the correct combination of race and gender; e.g., there's a female elf who can only be romanced if the PC is also a female elf. It also leaves the choice entirely up to the player to initiate flirting. Hilariously, the game still gives you the option to shoot your shot even when the companion has absolutely no interest in you, which leads to some very awkward dialogue. Cullen, I swear I'm not gay - I only hit on you because the game said I could. Please stop avoiding eye contact.
Spending half a year in Baldur's Gate 3 makes me go through your list and arguments going "check, check, check" I definitely agree. Especially with the Inset player character. I wanna experience the game through an ingame avatar and I grow very attached to THESE PCs. And man, are the companions PC-sexual
Windows is Tim's companion, and it sometimes interjects during the dialog.
Windows is the companion we made along the way
RIP windows xp you will be missed
Windows (or macOS) is a companion you can never fully control and often gets in your way...that's why I prefer Linux. 😉🐧💻
@@DavidCDrake I play video games so I prefer windows. As someone who started with MS DOS though I do miss the feeling of control. I absolutely hated W95 when it came out because it felt so restrictive.
@@blacxthornE Yeah, I hear ya! 😁
"Thanks Windows" seems like a running gag now!
1000%
Since WIndows 2000.
I liked companions in Fallout 4 because they had barks about every location you visit (some more generic than others but still)
Yeah they really did them great in Fallout 4. Great voice acting, lots of story and lines.
Yep, those were great. Nick Valentine might even be my favourite companion in all of the Fallout series, together with Raul and ED-E from New Vegas.
@@PedroGomes-cx7ku danny trejo did such a great job on raul for sure. My favorite companion in any Fallout game is either Sulik or Gage. But i really, really like a lot of them. Ede, Piper, Raul, Boone, Cait, Curie, MaCready, Longfellow, Valentine and Codsworth are all so fantastic.
They definitely feel more alive, my issue with Fallout 4 companion is they didn't feel different outside 1 specific ability. In FNV some companions were damn near useless with certain weapon types and if I'm not mistaken not all could wear power armor
@@R-YR29 everyone can wear power armor except lily, rex and ede.
The companion cube of Portal is the best companion.
It will not threaten to stab you, and in fact it cannot speak
It's just a cube with a heart on it...
I have to say romancing a foul-mouthed Irish gal by fast-traveling in my shorts in Fallout4 was an unexpectedly fun and funny experience that I will remember.
Please avoid using the words “romance” and “foul mouth” in the same sentence, that just sounds like kissing an unwashed mouth
@@Pangloss6413 context is important
I think companions in first person games usually benefit from a one-button control, just a single ping to say walk here, interact with this, shoot this enemy, etc. Kind of like how pings work in multiplayer shooters except they actually listen lol
The problem with that is you can only really point at specific objectives, and can't really affect their more general behaviors. It's a bit long in the tooth, but I'd point to the AI commands in Ace Combat 5 as a good sort of middle-ground: you basically only have four orders (tied to the D-Pad) you can issue: one's a toggle to allow/disallow allies from using their special weapons; one is for them to just go wild attacking enemies; one is for everyone to spread out; and one is for everyone to gather up near you.
In a typical first-person RPG you could swap out that special weapon toggle for your one-button command pointing at specific tasks (go here, attack this, use that); then for the three general behaviors they could be something like, "stay close and cover me, " "spread out and flank," and I dunno... "use you judgement?" With the latter maybe being unique to each companion? EG a melee companion'd just run into the thick of things; a sniper companion might pull back and stay in a fixed location until combat is over, etc.
It's not an RPG, but you could take an in-depth command system from a game like Operation Flashpoint (ArmA: Cold War Crisis) even though I'm referencing a super old game so there's probably a newer, better system out there. But it had a whole menu of radio commands you could issue to your squad to get them to interact with nearly everything in a map. That works because it's a PC game so you have the whole keyboard available, but it wouldn't be too hard to make it into menus and sub-menus with a controller.
@@lhfirex With the advent of AI maybe we can finally get a way to program companions that works better and is more intuitive. I see a future where we can just talk to companions and tell them what to do with voice commands.
“Companion, shoot that enemy!”
*the companion suddenly stands up from cover, walks through the firing line to stand directly beside the enemy you pinged*
I think it works great with Atreus from God of War.
There are two types of companions:
Those who block doorways
Those who block bullets
Don't forget another: there's one that kills you with burstfire while trying to kill someone.
They're the same thing...
One game I think impelemented Companions well was Wasteland 3 as you have a squad and each party member can specalize in a skill, so you have oneguy for hacking, one for lockpicking etc... It really made having a party feel meaningful imo.
Same. It made each party member be more than just a guy with a LMG or a sniper rifle. Make one a medic and a weird scientist while the other acts as a mechanic and leader. Compared to Fallout, it felt different in that one did get to create those two custom companions and let them have a role that wasn't just being fit for combat or support in a fight.
Hi Tim, it’s me, Windows.
Speaking of companion quests, I am still not over Sulik never finding his sister.
Ever played Killapp's Fallout Restoration Project?
I loved Arcanum's companions, especially the voice actor ones, Virgil, Magnus and Raven were really good - my first time playing Arcanum had the funniest bi-polar Virgil ever, turned hostile when I accidentally threw a newspaper in his face, renders himself unconscious trying to heal me while my tech aptitude was too high, ah memories.
I can hear your dog snorting in the background. It's very atmospheric.
Probably my #1 favorite inter-companion interaction was in Pillars when Edér was asking if it's ok to pet Sagani's fox, then later on they're talking about the wound from petting the fox 😂
Planescape had the best companions all time. Still can't get over how the Nameless One treated his companions. Just so much great lore.
Only issue is Valhior. Very intresting concept for a character, but comes waaay too late into the game and has a fraction of dialoges and interaction that other companions have.
@@ComissarYarrick Yeah.. I actually missed him my first playthrough I think.
I have never really thought about it concisely before, but you hit one of my largest gripes - when the game forces you to play a character other than the main character, or forces a specific character into the party. There have been games in the past that forced the player to play a portion of the game as a side-character that I did not like, and have stopped playing the game due to that. I prefer games that have the main character as a blank slate. I despise when the character I am playing makes a decision, that I would not have chose, without my input. Horror games in general are basically off the table for me because of this, as well as a bunch of action-rpg style games.
This is something I wish modders thought about a little more. I absolutely love using modded companions for games like Skyrim, but I don’t need them to all be in love with my character. Sometimes I want to roleplay a character that’s an old warrior, maybe someone that is dealing with grief. If my only options for a companion are people being sarcastic and flirty, I’m better off without companions entirely.
You didn't talk about it, but I really liked that you had leadership skills in the outer worlds. My favorite though was in new Vegas, having higher charisma increased the damage of your companions. It gave you a chose of how independent you wanted your pc to be as a personality. It also, made things like speech feel less useless, except for a few checks you might get once every hour or so in the game.
I love how in Kotor 1 your companions would talk to each other and in some instances argue and be hostile. An example would be Canderous, he was a mandalorian and his people attacked and destroyed the planet of one of your other party members so there was always this tension and hostility when you had both with you.
Regarding the point about companion romance, I think it can sometimes be useful to separate "companion romance in RPGs as a concept" from "the current default format of companion romance in RPGs". For discussion purposes, we could refer to the current default format (and its issues mentioned in this video) as "the BioWare formula", but "the BioWare formula" is not the only time romance pops up around RPG companions across games as a medium -- for a concrete example, Planescape Torment's characterization of the protagonist's past relationships gives a *very* interesting layer of complication to the moment where it asks the player "do you or do you not kiss back Annah?"
I always prefer controllable companions, but mostly not through real-time micro-management but by giving instructions that they follow until told otherwise. I like the advanced system in the first Dragon Age where you can instruct them to act differently depending on the situation, in effect creating if conditions for their actions. It's a lot of fun.
I think it's interesting how Larian does companions in DOS2 and BG3. The companions have their backgrounds and their default builds reflect that, but you can respec them to be completely different so you don't run into the issue of "I like this character but their build is redundant with my player character so it doesn't make sense to have them in my party".
I've fond memories of immediately hacking into my new savegames of Baldur's Gate / Baldur's Gate 2 to change characters' classes / builds to something I liked better.
It's a great feature!
Also, for some characters, I feel like it's practically expected you're supposed to do it.
The best example I can give is Minsc, whose default Ranger package (including six basic Ability Scores) doesn't even remotely fit what we know about him at all. It really feels like you're expected to rebuild him to what each individual player personally feels is the most accurate 5th edition rendition of his character (since he has only appears in past games with quite different rules).
And, by the time you encounter Minsc relatively late in the game, you would already be very familiar with BG3's 5th ed based character system.
I yield to none!
in Dos2 their build isn't tied to their story. in BG3 it is.
Not a fan tbh, though BG3 is still pretty great. I suppose it's possible to ignore the feature but mostly makes me feel like I have to min/max everyone not just my main. They're (almost) all lvl 1 when you get them so it's not like you don't have plenty of customization options.
Recently I've been playing "Pathfinder: Kingmaker" and after hearing you the past few videos I feel like you would like that game quite a bit, lol. The companions in the game generally work the way you described here, which I also find pretty cool.
+1 for kingmaker.. Makes me miss Birthright, an old AD&D module.. A lot of folks will recommend the sequel pathfinder game, but for me those characters just didn't land. kingmaker is the one
Even though it skews more to the action side of things, I've always liked the variety and flexibility dragon's dogma offered through it's pawns
yet another fulfillment of "man i wish there was a tim cain video about this"
Thanks for mentioning the romance part. I remember that during the Fig campaign for Pillars 2 there was some talk about romancing, whether it should be implemented and how and while it gave me high hopes I feel some of the companions came off quite horny (Serafen and Tekehu!).
I realized that I didn't really miss romance in the first game and I quite like how companion quests help describe the world and its themes (Sagani!), I really liked Eder's quest - even though it felt "unfinished" and kinda depressing, it really fit the game and its themes - I love how at some points the game never explicitly states the truth, but you can try to guess it (but you'll never know for sure), I also love how it tends to ponder whether stuff has have have meaning and what it means for us if it just doesn't. Also, Eder wears my favorite piece of original equip (in any game ever) - his armor - the thought that his brother might be still looking after him still makes me teary-eyed. Or maybe it wasn't his brother but Eothas! I guess we'll never know. Aaand the armor works just perfectly with him as a tank. And you can upgrade it and use it forever. I think it's brilliant.
But I'm getting too off topic. Great video, thanks!
Loved the companions in Pillars (mostly)
Thanks for talking about the romance stuff.
I like it when it fits , for example I somewhat think mass effect had really good tied in the way you start to become interested in each other.
I always thought while you can hit on all those people it is a tool to include more people and canonically you grew close to all of them but only with one you fell in love and the other never had the feelings despite the Dialog options being there.
But recently I played Rogue Trader and it was really weird to me how you can romance so many different people in a setting where everything is grim and dark and all hope is lost.
And especially how it broke the character writing for some.
You had this Alien Woman who literally calls you monkey because you are primitive to them and how you are just barely above an animal to her just so you can romance her in the first private conversation you have with her.
I sat there and realized I might not be horny enough to understand how that would work but it felt to me sooo out of place I couldnt understand how they would do that other than as a 'thirst-trap' for horny people.
That's pretty weird, since I believe the some studio that made the Pathfinder CRPGs also made Rogue Trader. In Pathfinder: Kingmaker the companions that can be romanced atleast feel somewhat believable and takes some time before it happens, (Well atleast a few of them, some are more blatant and in your face.)
You can try to romance the Eldar but she will hate you for it. She really doesn't like humans and won't even hold your hand. I kinda liked that in the sense that it felt fresh (compared to other games). The conclusion of her romance is quite platonic and asexual, you could even say that you just become friends - but the game communicates well that she doesn't let people get close to her, so it does feel special. Kinda missed that in BG 3, where everyone is just horny when you just want a friend/bro (looking at you Gale).
The greatest time I have ever had with companions was while playing Persona 3 FES. All the companions are AI-driven and it added a lot of personality to the characters. It was also a lot of fun managing your team, giving them orders and helping, when they got into trouble. This really reflected the core idea of the main character, I think. To be a good leader and responsible for the people that depend on you.
Feels completely different to play Portable version of the game, where you can control all the characters. While I appreciate the agency, I think that sometimes it can take away from a game some portion of fun or narrative ideas.
aw, you should have worn a Nuka Cola shirt :)
Also, an honorable mention to the greatest companion of all games. Ian from Fallout, who on the pro side can carry EVERYTHING for you but on the con side will shoot you in the back on burst mode.
Kinda agre...but really nuka cola and coca cola somehow they seem connected...
its weird, but ive been playing Stranded Alien Dawn and got hooked on it. Its a Rimworld-like, but had no idea it was until too late(30 hours deep), and i never knew how much of an idea generator these games are on top of the journey towards automation. I just love all the "drama" they involve themselves in while im slowly reaching towards my main goal.
Its just so much color for the characters and it really makes me think about how those interactions would go with diligent care and effort towards the weird breakups and love triangles that happen naturally in-game.
Oh yes, companions in crpgs. So crucial element, suprisnigly hard to done right ( tho also suprisingly hard to fubar completly, as long as basics are done right ). Think about it - on top of all that Tim said in this video there are also design dilemas like :
- Are companions respecable ? Can they change class/skills at will, not at all, or only under certain conditions (like doing personal quest )
- How spaced are companions in story/world of the game. Are they all front loaded (BG2 does this IMHO really well), or some can be only added late in the game ( wich runs the risk of player not wanting to mess with their already tried & tested party )
- Are some companions mutaly exclusive or blocked by some other factor ( like handmaieden/disciple and Mira/Hanharr in KoTR2 ). This limits player choice, but also encurages replayability
- Do companions ( especialy in class based systems ) have their own unique powers/skills/gear, exclusive to them, even if the player have same class as them ?
And probably many more
I got into Outer Worlds and I like companions there a lot (namely Parvati). They don't get in the way too much and you don't have to control them all the time but they intervene when it's important quest stage (like when I quicksaved and tried to kill that guy in charge of Edgewater while doing the deserters quest :D). And if you want you can ask them all the questions about them while on the spaceship
The real companions were the friends we made along the way.
I like how Fallout 2 improved on the companions control and pretty much added things Tim already wanted for Fallout, but then modded Fallout and 2 with Restoration patch are still the greatest old RPGs to me.
In Fallout 2 it is especially useful to give everyone ranged weapons (Sulik is really good with 223 pistol) and tell them to stay close both in combat and movement, they mostly only go where you go for tactical positioning or running away or to swarm the enemy, it is always fun.
Companions are something I really love in my games, they really impact my enjoyment of the game.
6:56 - Companions talking with each other. I remember being totally blown away when getting in a lift in Mass Effect 1 with Garrus and Wrex and listening to them jab at each other because of what the Taurens were responsible for. Immersion +100. As for romancing, I couldn't agree more with the sentiment of "jeez, everyone is so horny..." It's jarring to think that everyone who follows you finds your character that sexy. This is the realm for mods imo; romancing characters that have been originally intended to not become romance options for players.
Something that I like about the companions/characters in Baldur's Gate 3 is that they all have a common thread in the narrative and also have their own stories.
This is unrelated to the video, but I wanted to say it somewhere.
From about 2021 to about 6 months ago, I went through a bad time in my life. Fallout: New Vegas helped me keep it together through that time, being at times my only source of mental comfort. It helped me get through that time, and I think its the only reason I'm still alive. I want to thank you for making the game that saved me.
Thanks for the advice on video game development as well, I'm using it a lot in a dnd campaign. It's not entirely applicable, but it's really nice to have!
I don't think he was involved in that xD
but it's still nice you found comfort in such a great game
F:NV was directed by Josh Sawyer, I don't think Tim worked on it.
@@DonMcGlass Yeah, Tim did the original Fallout and part of Fallout 2. With that said, he and Boyarsky and the team created the franchise, so deserve their share of thanks even if the later Bethesda games are different.
I really like this video. I am going thorough Fallout 4 right now and i found out that this is what i am doing. I love having Dogmeat with me in general, but when i was checking out the part about the underground i had Valentine. I just headed to the Institute and i went to take Piper with me because she has a real interest in the Institute - but then she got left behind. 😄 *** I have enjoyed the 'feedback' of "Soandso liked that' or disliked that. I am playing my character the way i want to, but i am getting to learn about these companions this way.
I have an idea (not sure if any game does this) that to limit the amount of companions you have is to make it where some companions hate or dislike each other and will not join you if you have that companion.
Here's an example I made up. One companion loves one faction while hates the other faction, but you a companion who is a member of that faction that the other companion hates so the other companion doesn't join you. And maybe you can have both companions if you can convince them to pretend the other one doesn't exist and as long as you don't piss off either of them.
That's my idea anyway.
Some of my fondest memories are dealing with the unexpected results of fallout 2 companions decisions in combat.
No marcus the bandit has 3 health and is standing beside some farmers, you dont need to use your mingun.
Lol your fault for having him use a minigun mate
>Marcus proceeds to minigun the bandit, as well as Myron, who's standing behind him
Alright, Marcus, you got me this time.😏
@@fredrik3880 true but I don't have the heart to take it off him.
@@dylanramsey5817 exactly. Swings and roundabouts 😂
@@brochampe-se9fq lol i hear you.
You are a great gift to the community by your contributions, thank you for your contributions (your videos) and all the work you have done on your games. Your work will be repaid in kind
Whenever I need to make an evil decision to kill a nice poor defenseless character, I usually command my companion to do the kill so that my own hands stay clean.
IMO, the ideal number of companions is 2-3 times the number of companion "slots" you have. So in a game with a party size of 4 (PC + 3 companions), the ideal number would be 6-9. In general, the more ways there are for companions to die or leave the party, the closer to the top of that range the number should be.
Every RPG I play i find myself wishing it had a companion system like Mass Effect.
Two at a time, good selection, inter-companion banter and good environment comments it really brought the games to life for me and now I haven't been able to look at other games the same since.
“Thanks Windows!” Hahahahaha Great video, Tim! Cheers from Brazil!
I liked the uncontrollable companions, made things interesting
Rolling up with a posse in arcanum is pretty funny. I did my first playthrough with Virgil, Sogg, Jayna, Magnus, Gar, Raven, and Dog.
See Tim, there's an important fact you forgot to take into consideration regarding romance. Which is that the player character is so hot and irresistable that every walk of life can't help but want to marry them.
I always use them, I like companions, I like the banter with and between them but mostly because of their reactions, they're an extension of the world, and the first thing I do is to force click'em (thank you warcraft 2).
In Pillars1 there's an interaction with Pallegina, and don't remember if after the click mayhem of between Kana where she starts to...sing!? I love companions.
I like to manage them, their inventory and tailoring their build, I would never play a cleric, companion...that's your job!
I would never play dwarves, and here you go Sagani in Pillars, my preferred companion ever.
Raven in Arcanum was done well- I blundered into a romance option with her on a 4th playthrough, I had no idea it even existed.
You say you should have more companion choices than companions you bring with you, which I agree with, but I really dislike "shelved" companions. I often end up always using the same companions, unless the game gives me incentive to rotate them (as I can rotate wounded bros in Battle Brothers). This shelf of unused companions usually results in problems when suddenly their quest comes into play when you almost forgot about them (as in BG3, if you forget about Wyll and don't care about him, things happen but I really couldn't care less). If companions actually leave instead of being shelved, I think it's way better (Colony Ship kind of does that for instance).
The game could also balance it, so that enemy factions will send more enemies depending on how many companions you have.
Where a solo player wouldn't find many enemies, as the enemy factions find that they don't need to send too people to take care of one lone hero.
Each companion could add like 2 extra enemies per enemy encounter.
A really smart game, could also make sure those extra two are build to counter the companion in question.
E.g. a tank companion could trigger two high damage dealers or add tank armour mitigation modifiers.
Hey Tim, there is an aspect of companions that you didn't touch on that I'd like to hear your opinion on.
That is the players influence over the personality and outcomes of the companions storyline.
Using two examples from the Pathfinder game Wrath of the Righteous, you have one companion who you can steer towards becoming good or going back to being pure evil by your interactions with them. Alternatively you have a companion who is a sociopath who no matter what will always end the story as one, while you can seem like you make progress, in the end they see you as a threat and you either support their desires or you put them down.
Do you think companions should be influenced by player characters or do you prefer their personalities be a core part of them that the player has to accept or just leave them behind?
The way Baldur's Gate 3 let you respec any companion to any class they didn't start as was kind of nice because it let you just take companions you want to find out more about or want to hear banter from. I guess it has the downside of having them feel less set in stone, less who they are. If you respec say Lae'zel to Cleric, something about it feels off but at least you got to see how she is, whereas if you couldn't respec someone you might never want to pick them up in any playthrough.
Interestingly enough, Fallout 1 & 2 informed my thoughts on companions early. I've always found CRPGs overwhelming when I have to control every party member. Having a couple followers that I can talk to but otherwise follow their own combat strategies just works better for me - independent of real time vs turn based.
Dragon Age: Origins and DA2 really innovated by allowing me to setup my party members' tactics then let them do their thing (with occasional direct inputs).
The Outer Worlds hit a similar comfort level and, along with other things, warranted four full playthroughs at release!
I love these videos and getting hear the thoughts behind certain party decisions.
But just saying, I've finished every Fallout game (except Tactics), most of them many times, but have never finished a CRPG besides DA:O.
Last year, I begun playing through the BG Enhanced Editions and actually stuck with it after half a dozen times of not being able to because I started RPing more instead of treating the RPG as a checklist of things to do. A large part of that was playing as a dumb half-orc fighter that was being discriminated against (it's a lot easier to replace the "something is special and a bit frightening about you" in those games with orc racism than I thought it would be). And they went out of their way to pick up anyone else that they felt was discriminated against. Evil drow cleric that wants to be left alone and is constantly fighting for her life, join the group! Wild mage who's being hunted for being different (and dangerous) - I have to protect her. It made the game a lot more fun for me.
Regarding romance, I have similar complaints that everyone ends up being player-sexual in some games and that detracts from the character in a lot of ways. That being said, I think companion relationships are super important. Neeshka from NWN2 is by far the most important part of that game for me and, despite not being romanceable, had a lot more impact to my personal playthroughs than the handful of romances that do exist.
My favorite companion system ever in a first person game is New Veags with the JIP C&C mod. I can make EVERYONE stop and wait by holding a button without the game pausing. No dialog tree, no intrusive menu.
I can go through the dungeon myself without anyone getting in the way or making stealth harder or saying some stupid quip after I pick something up.
It's not perfect obviously since i would like them to join me, but unless companions become life-like they will always be combersome in first person games. To me anyway.
I think it's interesting that, when discussing romance, your first impulse was to describe it as requiring NPCs to hit on the player. Reminds me of BG3 where they do just that -- and, like you said, if feels weird. But *WHY* is it that the NPCs have to initiate the romances in the first place? It strikes me that pretty much every RPG I've played with romances in it has those romances begin with NPCs flirting with the PC -- why can't everyone just be aro/ace until or unless the player initiates something?
Is there any particular reason, do you think, why romances are typically designed this way?
The main reason companions initiate romance is player discovery. If you spend a lot of time (i.e. a lot of money) making a feature, you want to player to interact with it. Even more, the person/company paying you wants that feature used, otherwise their money was “wasted”. That’s why most features, whether it’s romance or crafting or base building, is put directly into the player’s path so they know it’s there and interact with it.
@@CainOnGames It's sad the people with the money have such little faith in peoples intelligence and curiosity, it seems to ruin a lot of art and entertainment.
@@RancidZombieGuts I don't think it's a "people with the money" problem. It really hurts when people completely miss out on something you put a lot of effort into because you didn't point it out. Indie games and game mods do this kind of thing too.
@@ChadVulpes People always find hidden things in games though, even if a lot of people don't find everything straight away, lots of people will, and finding it themselves will make it feel more special, rather than a checklist of all the content the game has because it blatantly points everything out to you.
@@ChadVulpesAnd that applies to other things in games too. My first thought is Story/quest branches that only really happen after seeing most of the content. Which is understandable, if disappointing.
Thank you for the video!
Regarding companion gameplay and the "cover the bases" property of a well designed companion system: Do you believe that the player should be able to build a party that can unlock all the possible solutions for quests? E.g. should the player controlled party always have at least one character with a skill/trait at max value, with the right affiliations, other other prerequisites to use a specific solution? It offers the players more choices but also could harm replayability (if all paths are open to the party).
Anyhow, thank you again for all your work on these! Have a great day!
Fallout 4 went above and beyond with its Companions, especially with how they change to more you get to know them. And there are also some who don't have a quest or romance which I like, sometimes it's good just to have a friend or two who doesn't ask you for help/advice.
Get out of the doorway, Dogmeat...
Dammit Dogmeat stop running away I'm trying to get all the stuff I put in the inventory...
Yeah absolutely amazing companions in Fallout 4.
then they just forgor how to make good companions in starfield. im always kind of down on FO4 but it definitely did companions right. like one of the only things they learned from FNV
@@obsidiancrow450 starfield is just awful in so many ways. Cant play it. So boooring.
Hey Tim, very cool video! I was thinking about using companions to win in a game and was wondering:
How do you mechanically support a full-speech playthrough? You mention supporting that kind of playthrough in all of your RPGs, but what goes into the mechanics of that? Is it just good writing? How do you support the speech skill? Is there anything that goes into avoiding failing a check by pure chance? I see people complain about that last one the most, where you do the right answer and then fail the talking route by pure RNG. Would love your thoughts on making a good speech playthrough and speech mechanics!
You would probably like this video: ua-cam.com/video/AvEltSS8U1k/v-deo.html
@@CainOnGames aha! There's the keywords I couldn't find when I searched for it, thanks for pointing that one out!
Some of my favorite companions in the games ive played are:
Korgan Bloodaxe from bg 2. '
-Drink hail! Wassail fer all. I be curious friends. Im scouring fer a band of desperate men to aid me in all galant task. Ye look like you keep undertakers in a brisk trade. Have ye courage and time fer a tale?
-Me axe be bloody ready.
-I best be paid well fer this.
-Aye now this be more like it. The first to disobey me orders gets an axe through their skull.
-They do all the work. And we ends up with the gold, the book, the loot and the satisfaction of kicking their tails. Ahhh. A good day.
Lol know all these and more from memory.
Virgil, Arcanum.
-Here you are the chosen one, err the living one and i cant even remember who you are. supposed to be.
Magnus Arcanum,
People say they hear strange noises at night. Moaning, clanking of chains, muffled screaams.
Loghaire Arcanum
-As a human his first thought was, what can i use this for. When it should have been what cost is its use?
Gar Arcanum,
-Gar worlds smartest orc not professor of mathematics.
Sulik fallout 2
-What can we and i do for you?
-Grampy bone is strong spirit. Keep him close. Easier to touch his spirit that way.
-Sis went trading in another village and never come back. We and i go look for her.
-Drank like a fish. Got POed. Spirits of anger and chaos pop out and now we have to pay some coin to make it right.
So many great companions in the games ive played. So much fun.
Ugh, RPG romance. The first Witcher game turned sexual encounters into a literal game of collecting baseball cards, and I can’t in-see that now in any sort of romance/sex mechanic in games.
As much as I love Mass Effect, the romance in those games is incredibly perfunctory. You pour player actions into one companion so that at the end of the game you can watch an optional cutscene where two plastic dolls mash against each other briefly.
Romance should definitely not be a case of “put in the designed amount of tokens to receive a reward.” Romance is a narrative tool, and making it mechanical and transactional is immature, amateurish and degrading.
I find it annoying how a lot of games don't work a narrative into why you split your party to do a quest. So there's this powerful demon in a cave and out of these seven great friends that you have, you decide to risk your life by bringing only two of them while rest sit in a tavern and suck air? There should either be systems where bringing too many companions is detrimental(too much XP being split, stat decreases etc) or be a narrative that enforces that the rest of the companions stay behind(they defend the tavern from monsters so that you have somewhere to come back to).
Most games don't keep that in mind and it really pulls me out of the experience when I happen to think about it.
I really like the way cyberpunk 2077 handled romance. It was really well integrated into the quest structures. I was really happy with that.
I also wish that New Vegas had kept some more of its romance features like the side quest with Cass, fleshed Lucy out more, arcade, or made Sarah more fleshed out. Same thing for female protags too. I guess theres a lot that would have to change but it would have added some more depth to characters, I think.
my problem with companions is that the devs won't give you the guys you want to follow you organically and instead push upon you some fancy archetypes. i want sir cauthrien who wants to do good but troubled by wrong loyalties and not zevran who's just a gun for hire or sten who we can't reasonably judge to do our biddings. i want calisca sent to us by fate and not some total randoes standing around just to be approached by the player. i want that second in command of some guy who messes with us for the keep or something. there's this genuine believable moment and shadow of doubt when we kind of want to say - cmon, dude, you know your boss is wrong, you can do good with us. but certainly not devil of caroc who is presented in such a way that there's literally no (in-game/in-character) reason to take her in our party. she's just like morinth (at least that is what we can deduct atm).
Regarding balance for solo vs full party play, aside from the implicit incentive of XP/gold/loot splitting letting you pour more power progression into one character (I was personally never a fan of party XP splitting), Larian had an interesting take in Divinity: Original Sin 1 and 2 with the Lone Wolf perk you could get on characters that would apply major bonuses, including to the action points to equalize the action economy, when those characters were currently in a 1 or 2 person party. That ended up making Lone Wolf overpowered but I think that was more a tuning issue with the magnitude of the bonuses, and I did like the general idea of what they were going for. E.g. even if you wanted to keep combat balance and action economy much more intact than Lone Wolf did, you could let solo characters diversify their skill set while still capping their vertical progression in any one skill at a similar level to before. And in combat you can partly rely on the action economy to counterbalance the power of such a diversified solo character since if you use an action point for one thing (backstab), you can't use it for another thing (cast a spell).
I think my first experience with companions was either The Crescent Hawks Inception or The Lost Vikings. They made it feel as if Eric was the lead but my "main character" in my brain was Baleog because he had the weapons. Yet you couldn't obviously, even play the game without constantly switching between the three characters. Of course then there was Hard Nova, and Strike Force. Thing is, after you got those companions in your party, sure their one higher skill than others allowed you to progress, but then that's it. Eventually, everyone could play the roll and the companion was just part of the collective group. I think this same mentality was placed into Star Ward The Old Republic. I really really liked the companions you made in the game and each one really felt like their own individual. But first, and this is going back a long time, When it came to the companions Special "I got to do this somewhere else, all by myself " mission and they returned to tell me, I was like MAN! I wanted to be there, I wanted to at least see them do all this and even experience that story and get involved in it. But no. That was a huge bummer to me and felt like having a companion with such a background was wasted. Later on, each companion could take the role specific to other characters you found. ANYONE could be the Tank ANYONE could be the healer or Additional DPS. With crafting and skill sets becoming a total mess, i just gave up on the game because the fundamental part I loved, The companions, their uniqueness and specific rolls, were taken away from me. My main character was STILL the focus, but in a massive universe, it wasn't just always about me.
Now I've never played a fallout game, but I remember your companions always got killed or got you killed.
I really don't like when you can use your companions' skills to compensate for areas you're weak in. A well rounded party with characters that are strong in different ways always feels like it's equivalent to having one super character with little to no weaknesses. Dampens replayablility A LOT and not feeling your weaknesses takes away from role play for me.
Agreed
Agree 100% with your discussion of romances with companions. Far too many games have characters that jump at a romance just because you are nice to them or complete their companion quest.
I think it matters a lot more that they are well written than any of the things you have brought up. I'm inclined to take a well written companion with me even if they suck at combat. As for being essential I think this is also a case of writing, with sufficient justification for them to be there, and not just forcing the pc to yes man, but having extremely bad consequences for turning them down or killing them, for example if you kill the priest that can banish the demon you'll fight a buffed demon.
About the romance: I don't think it has to be necessarily horny. Bethesda has some romances (and from the games that I played, I prefer the ones in FO4), but they're pretty sex less (other than the lover's embrace effect after sleeping there is almost no notion of doing anything physical). That said, I think is possible to be more or less horny depending on the companion itself. Some may have little to no interest on sex, some may only care about sex, or some may evolve from one to the other. There are many options when it comes to companions romance, but I don't think it needs to be physical to be successful, memorable nor interesting.
I personally feel like tactical squad-based shooters like Ready or Not or classic Rainbow Six are probably the best way to handle companion control as a first person game. I guess the problem is that it's still a middle ground between normal AI companions and controllable ones with twice the work.
Some of my best Fallout memories was being obliterated by Ian via uzi. 10/10.
Speaking about sequels, how to you handle choosing how a "branch" becomes canon. For example, Ian and Dogmeat dying on FO1
I've got a video coming up in a few weeks on canonical endings that addresses that issue.
I really like, when you get lore depth with companions, a few notable DnD CRPG's likes to invent factions for side quests that have no part in the main quest.... And I usually just skip that dialogue and solve them for xp... The universal sign for a bad side quest.
I like when companions break the character creation rules a bit, so i could not have made that character as a main.... Just for spice, and something new to explore.
I usually like to play solo if the game allows it (especially when companions make the game too easy, like in Skyrim). My exception is dogmeat 🐕.
Please don't edit out the Windows pop-up noises... now my best friend and I say, "Thank you, Windows," every time our computers make noise because of you!
Played tons of CRPGs and there are a few things that makes me detest companions; real time combat (with or without pause function, doesn't matter), giga yank threat handling (my most common example being: your healer either instantly getting all the mob aggro at the start of combat even though kept in the backline or from just 1 healing spell even though all the enemies prior were fully engaged in combat with your actual meatshields) haven't seen a CRPG that nails the balance of that yet, and not being able to customize your companion builds to a degree where a few or more become redundant or unplayable (due to alignment issue combo'd with locked class) just because you wanted your main character to be that class. Probably a few more things I can't think of right now and the video already brought up the horniness problem....
Man I really wish bethesdas writers would start watching Tim's videos.
there aren't many of those at BGS unfortunately, they just have the quest designers handling the writing too.
I don't think you've ever mentioned the Persona games before, but in terms of games where "If the main character dies, it's game over", I think they've done it better than any other, probably even better than Baldur's Gate 1-2.
Might be worth your while to check out 3 under that lens, because 3 was designed with the clear goal of "This is your character and these are your companions", baked into it. For better or for worse.
You can't control your companions: Why would you be able to? They're not your automotous robots, you're their leader and you can give directions, but they act themselves.
If you die, it's Game Over: Even if they're still alive, maybe they can win without you, maybe they can solve the whole story without you. But for you, you're dead, that's it. You don't get to see it. Game over.
Ultimately, both of those are fantastic concepts and both of them were not super well recieved as gameplay features, so Persona 4 walked them back a little and Persona 5 got rid of them pretty much entirely, but in terms of the pure vision of "This is the character YOU control and this is HIS story" I think Persona 3 is extremely interesting. Hell, the entire narrative is structured around that character's coming of age and learning about connections with humanity.
It's probably not your kind'a game in general, but I think you'd find that aspect interesting.
EDIT: To clarfiy, why I rate it higher than something like BG1+2. In BG it's just a narrative gimmick, Resurrection is canon in BG, but your character can't be resurrected because of their special background. You could remove that detail from the background and let the player character be resurrected and very little meaningful would change. Particularly when Saevarok breaks the rules and comes back regardless. Your party members are still completely controlled (which I prefer), and there's no emphasis on the gameplay systems as giving insight into this as your character's world, it's just a narrative gimmick, it's why the Bhaalspawn are becoming extinct in a world with resurrection.
Virgil is still my all time favourite RPG companion. Though, to be honest, I don't play much of anything anymore.
Such a good topic! Thanks for the video.
I think it's perfectly okay to not balance for solo play. Many solo players enjoy the challenge, or prefer stealth, which is difficult with companions anyway. I think as long as its not overbearing, its ok to have solo play be difficult.
How WOULD you do stealth with companions? Ive seen a few approaches, but do you have any wisdom or considerations to share on the matter?
How do you feel about DEGREES of playability for companions? You can give them orders VS you can switch to controlling them entirely?
Hi Tim have you considered doing a video on your ideas/concepts for games that never came to fruition
If you can stand watching bleary-eyed grungy Tim, I talk about some of my half-finished games (I call them toys) here: ua-cam.com/video/mHMFG8uvOb0/v-deo.html
@@CainOnGames thanks Tim
Idk why but i never liked companion combat, it broke immersion for me cause they are immortal and cannot die. But i always add them in my party for the story elements. So its kind of double edged sword :/ 6:40 is a very good point of why
when they have quests that instantly fail when they die, I can get past them being immortal. so much less annoying imo.
Always liked Virgil. Good arc and interesting to talk to. Really anchored Arcanum for me. How was Virgil developed? And was the intent always to be the player's anchor to the world? Or was that just my experience.
Yeah i agree with doing companions the way you describe it (no direct control over them, player does dialogue etc). I think the limit of companions at the same time should be 2 or 1 (combat balance). In a game like fallout new vegas or f4 1 is good. And maybe add an extra like rex or ede (small robot or dog). But in a game like Arcanum 2 people is better.
Romancing is awesome. F4 did it great.
I agree that companions should not be needed (only for their own quests). And they should not be unkillable for the player. And the game should work well without playing with companions.
I liked how they did it in BG3 with the romance system being like some hidden point based affinity system which prompts flirting options which you can pursue and then it develops through the main story and the companion quests even more. Sure it was a bit unpolished on release but concept wise I think it's really well made. Another such game with excellent romance with companions for me was DA:Inquisition which took a little bit of a different approach having a more restrictive way of handling it in the sense of sexual preference since you can't romance any character with any playable character, some have male or female preferences, and some may have had both but I do not remember.
That’s interesting because I felt that BG3 was way too heavy handed with how it handled romance, and I just felt that there was a plain over abundance of romantic encounters.
I think BG3 is amazing but it feels overly horny to me in a way that makes the world feel so artificial just to please the player. It really takes me out of the role playing experience.
And whenever anyone talks about BG3 companions they always talk about them in the context of sex or romance, never friendship. I was craving the experience of being part of a fellowship but instead I just felt like I was being mercilessly hit on all the time lol.
I don’t hate romances in gaming as a rule, it’s not my favorite thing but I did engage with romance in Mass Effect and Dragon Age Origins and I felt it really added to the story in those games while also feeling natural, and those games still had plenty of purely platonic characters to balance it out. For some reason BG3’s approach to romances just really didn’t do it for me.
@@carsonnesbit1178 that's fair, i do think it's subjective at the end of the day
I havent played BG3. I have began to avoid romance options because the moment I understand the mechanics I feel like a creep applying them. This is one place where a highly scripted story beats an adaptive one for me.
I noticed you didn't talk about evil companions, Often in games a good/neutral playthrough there are 6 or so companions to choose from but if you are doing an evil playthrough there is normally only one and it makes evil playthroughs feel less fleshed out. Evil playthroughs also tend to lack unique quests and it feels like it was an afterthought. Is this due to budget, time, analytics (few people want to do evil playthroughs), lack of ability of the developer to put themselves in the shoes of an evil character, or something else?
I think it honestly comes down alot to the fact, most people are not going to choose the "evil" route compared to the "good guy" route. So unless the game is entirely about playing the bad guys, such as Dungeon Keeper. It is kind of a wasted investment of resources to put just as much focus on a much more niche path of play, compared to the overall more played path. That's just how I see it atleast.
@@CaptmagiKono Then I guess you need to ask is an RPG that doesn't support an evil playthrough really an RPG?
@@CaptmagiKonothis isn't an rpg but evil playthroughs in dishonored are alot of fun because rampaging in that game is alot of fun
I think I fall somewhere in the middle when it comes to romance. I enjoy it in games when it's optional but agree it can go overboard and I don't like it shoved in my face. I like the way it was handled in Fallout 4, where you had to spend a lot of time with a companion before the "flirt" option showed up, and it was just that, an option. If you didn't want to flirt you could choose to be friends, and then that was the end of it. And iirc in Fallout New Vegas, the companions had preferences right? so it wasn't like everyone was automatically "playersexual."
Door Stuck!
Companions for me mean a new way to play the game, if done correctly, such as in Outer Worlds. You skill yourself as a tinkerer, collecting and upgrading gear that you then distribute. Effectively, instead of min maxing yourself, you are doing that for your companions.
It can have a great payoff if done right. Reminds me of the Eridanos slug boss encounter, where, on the highest difficulty, I just entered and stood there for 10 seconds as my companions gunned it down. Great payoff for playing this way,
The problem is if a game forces you to loose your companions temporarily and solo fight, that cripple the enjoyment as the game is suddenly forcing you to play in a different style.
This is only the mechanics, the characters also need to have interesting stories, but its something I never had to worry about from Obsidian.
If curious, this 25 second clip is how the slug looked like with a good companion setup on hardest survival - ua-cam.com/video/yACVuVfe2yg/v-deo.html
Do you maybe know why there are no Rogue companions in the Pillars of Eternity?
Dragon Age: Inquisition is the only game I've played that's pulled off romance well. Each companion is thoroughly fleshed out as a character and most of them are only possible to romance if the PC is the correct combination of race and gender; e.g., there's a female elf who can only be romanced if the PC is also a female elf. It also leaves the choice entirely up to the player to initiate flirting.
Hilariously, the game still gives you the option to shoot your shot even when the companion has absolutely no interest in you, which leads to some very awkward dialogue. Cullen, I swear I'm not gay - I only hit on you because the game said I could. Please stop avoiding eye contact.
You didn't just say that about the game that has iron bull as a romance....
@@mementomori771 Hey, different strokes for different folks.
The only good RPG romance was the gimpening in FO2.
Dogmeat from Fallout 4 is my favorite! 🎉🎉🎉
Spending half a year in Baldur's Gate 3 makes me go through your list and arguments going "check, check, check"
I definitely agree. Especially with the Inset player character. I wanna experience the game through an ingame avatar and I grow very attached to THESE PCs.
And man, are the companions PC-sexual