Quick questions about companions

[Rawls]

So what?

I’m asking that sincerely, not as a dismissal of the argument.

So what defines a "good game" collectively requires satisfying lots of people. If you upset a bunch of them by making it so they cannot complete the game, that's a problem. Especially in a narrative-focused game.

But it also holds an immensely artificial trait coming from the characters immortality. Witcher 3’s companions were a testament to that. Immortal companions can not be of any use in combat situations, because the player will exploit their immortality, and if they are of no use, they’re in the way and actually do more harm to the storytelling by giving the feeling of it being force fed by those earlier mentioned artificial means.

I don't think the characters in TW3 felt artificial in there personalities. Now surely, they were poor companions gameplay wise, but I don't think that is strongly connected to their immortality, but rather how under-powered they were. I mean a good compromise to account for gameplay balance, is to make them meaningfully effective in combat, but if they get "incapacitated" they cannot be revived until AFTER the combat encounter. This incentivizes not just sitting back and letting them do the work, cause they might get killed and now you've got to finish a fight made for two all on your lonesome, but still keeps them around for narrative quality. It also makes them feel important within the game balance.

 

[kofeiiniturpa]

So what defines a "good game" collectively requires satisfying lots of people.

They dared exclude third person perspective. This is much, much less polarizing issue. And I think it's kinda undermining the audience as a whole to imply they couldn't handle it (similiarly to implying people can't handle more systems driven gameplay does).

I don't see much value in limiting your creative merits by playing it forcibly safe with an issue like this.

I don't think the characters in TW3 felt artificial in there personalities.

No, they didn't. Not for their personalities, but the whole essential-narrative-tag-along thing wasn't a good decision by any merit as things worked out. You didn't need to care for those relatively well written personalities at all, or care about their delicate storylines, because there wasn't any risk involved with them. They weren't there for any other reason than to just be there.

And being knocked out... well, it's not different in effect. Just presentation.

Ask me, it shows lack of creativity (if not writing) to have essential NPC's in a game that already boasts for being highly reactive and having this and that many narrative branches all over the place. It feels cheap.

 

[Rawls]

It feels cheap.

To each their own.

EDIT: Also, just FYI,

Can the player kill all NPCs?

-if not, all unessential NPCs?


PW: No, we would like to tell a very good story and our stories have always been very character driven, so some NPCs have to be essential to the story that we are telling.

https://forums.cdprojektred.com/ind...om-2018-edition.10979804/page-2#post-11096951

 

[lelxrv]

If CP77 doesn't have tactical mode (Fallout, Mass Effect, Baldur's Gate), and it most likely won't, I'd rather not have any companions that can die. Because it will only add frustration since you can't properly control them or develop strategy around them in fast-paced shooter like this. And AI is super-limited to act properly on it's own.

I guess it will be similar to Witcher games. Just tag-alongs in some missions. Which isn't bad or good. Because they don't influence anything outside story.

 

[kofeiiniturpa]

EDIT: Also, just FYI,



https://forums.cdprojektred.com/ind...om-2018-edition.10979804/page-2#post-11096951

That's too bad. It doesn't mention companions, but nonetheless. There are be better ways.

 

[Bondaebu]

I loved Witcher's companion system.

Companions in video games are very easy to be felt artificial, empty.

But, as allowing npcs to follow player at appropriate timing only, devs can efficiently enhance the story, characters so that we experience exceptionally memorable situations. This is one of the reasons why Witcher 3's characters are feel so alive i think.

And 24/7 followers themselves are unrealistic. They should live their own life.

 

[Snowflakez]

https://forums.cdprojektred.com/ind...g-solo-possible.10981097/page-2#post-11108630




I've never seen the 90% stat anywhere. But it is true that it has been said there sometimes will be companions, and sometimes multiple companions. I would expect it to be less than 90% though. In the first part of the demo, V has two companions, Jackie and T-Bug.

I sure as heck hope it's less than 90 percent. That is a ridiculous number. I also have never seen that anywhere.

If it was truly 90%, I'd expect an actual companion system, and not what they've described and shown so far.

 

[MrQwerty227]

I don't remember where it was said, but it's already been confirmed by CDPR that companions will only be quest related. You can't pick people to follow you around everywhere like you can in Bethesda games. When you're not in a quest that specifically involves a companion, you will be alone.

 

[sv3672]

That's too bad. It doesn't mention companions, but nonetheless. There are be better ways.

If The Witcher 3 is anything to go by, companions are usually also important story characters.

I sure as heck hope it's less than 90 percent. That is a ridiculous number. I also have never seen that anywhere.

If I understand it right from other comments, the number is speculation based on a developer's statement that the game cannot be played (entirely) alone. In other words, there are quests where having companion(s) is not optional. But this does not actually imply that 90% of the game has to be spent with companions, just some unknown amount. Again, the best reference we have is The Witcher 3.

I don't remember where it was said, but it's already been confirmed by CDPR that companions will only be quest related.

The quotes can be found in the developer answers thread here.

 

[kofeiiniturpa]

If The Witcher 3 is anything to go by, companions are usually also important story characters.

Yeah. I hope Witcher 3 isn’t much to go by in this regard nor certain others.

 

[Mevik1023]

Technically, it's best for a living/breathing world if characters can die. But I'll be the first to hypocritically admit I prefer games with safe NPCs and followers. Or at least an option for either in the game's settings. Because if NPCs can die, all I'm going to do is ignore them for their own safety. I guess I'm a good friend like that. And if I have this mindset, I'm completely missing out on a big part of the gameplay experience as companions can provide interesting perks and interactions. So immersion aside, I do prefer not having to worry about these things while enjoying the company of a game's great supporting characters.

Elizabeth from BioShock Infinite is among my favorite videogame followers. She provides fun abilities that enhance gameplay, but doesn't require babysitting. She can't die, but also can't tank through a fight on her own. Her powers cater to the fact that someone else is playing the game, and she's just there to help without annoying the player. I'd consider a best case scenario for 2077 followers to be one in which we choose between a variety of characters with fun and wacky ways to help. Maybe you have to complete a quest line in order to gain their loyalty in combat or ensuing romances that may be included. Then they follow you for as long as you want and dying only means dropping to a knee for a few minutes before rejoining the action.

It's not much for realism but neither is reloading my save every time Lydia wanders off a cliff.