Party members: Direct control or Fallout/Arcanum style

[shihonage]

I hate direct control, as it kills the illusion of NPCs being characters with minds of their own.

But lack of such control kills the ilusion of NPCs having any minds, own or not.

Does anyone recall the posts on Black & White forums with all the incredible stories of the monkey's intelligence which had little to do with the actual AI's intelligence ?

You'd be surprised how much intelligence people will attribute to a combination of AI and semi-random behaviors - as long as they're not obviously retarded, such as continuously walking into a wall or harming the PC by accident.

 

[mondblut]

Does a leader of "mondblutian faction" even need to comment? :D

As a matter of fact, I *did* enjoy the retarded self-slaughtering AI in Fallout. Watching Vic wipe off half the party with a well-aimed burst *was* fun and in the spirit of the game (which *is* about people hilariously bursting apart after a point-blank shotgun blast, don't let pretentious stuck up artfags tell you otherwise), and it always kept me smiling through the reload screen.

Of course, games which aren't focused on lulzy gratitious violence for the sake of gratitiously violent lulz demand full and absolute control over the action figures.

 

[Longshanks]

WTF is this retarded shit?

Roleplay a collective entity? Of course you fucking can. But surely even the idealogical ignorami can see that this comes at the expense of roleplaying a particular character? It is possible to have both in a single game, but not to full effect.

In a game where you create a single character it makes sense for followers to be limited, in both number and utility, if that game is to be a well-rounded RPG with strong character building.

Otherwise you can create a character who's shitty at combat, but suffer no negative consequence of it. A character who focuses on ranged, but hey, we have 10 other guys who are melee freaks, so no difference in gameplay, etc. Extend the utilisation of followers to other aspects - lockpicking, crafting, dialogue skill checks, and how you create your character means shit, pretty much just affecting which followers you'll pick up.

My objection's not story-fag, "but my followers should have a mind of their own", bullshit or combat-closet-gay, "I want to pound everything in sight", bullshit - it's about character development, and a little more about parties in general than direct control - though no direct control makes much more sense for character-based roleplay than direct control, as it keeps the focus on your character and limits the effectiveness of any followers. Both direct and non-direct control are perfectly fine, depending on the aims of the particular game.

 

[shihonage]

Otherwise you can create a character who's shitty at combat, but suffer no negative consequence of it. A character who focuses on ranged, but hey, we have 10 other guys who are melee freaks, so no difference in gameplay, etc

Very true. The KOTOR approach removes uniqueness from the character you created.

 

[Emotional Vampire]

Real men save the world alone and you know it.

 

[janjetina]

Direct control, constrained by features (stats, "alignment") of the particular character (a low strength, low endurance character with high mental abilities would refuse to swim across the river, a good character would refuse to kill a child etc.). Direct control doesn't prevent the distinctiveness and development of companions' personalities. PS:T had direct control over companions and fully fleshed out distinct companion personalities. It is the only way to provide tactical challenge and prevent player frustration by incompetent AI blunders.

 

[Black_Willow]

I don't see the fundamental difference whether it's one character you're acting out in your head or two.

That says much about your mental condition.

 

[Awor Szurkrarz]

Direct control, constrained by features (stats, "alignment") of the particular character (a low strength, low endurance character with high mental abilities would refuse to swim across the river, a good character would refuse to kill a child etc.)

But a good old fashioned murder of an innocent adult would be OK?

Anyway, I think that a system that could take these into account would probably work equally well without character control.

 

[Kz3r0]

I must confess that I have always loved the way you can control and develop your party in Vampire:Redemption, controlling different characters as you please, the same goes for KOTOR.
Way much more RPGish than having a party of AI controlled NPCs doing the things that your character can't.

 

[Ausir]

I like how in Van Buren the level of your control over the followers was going to depend on your Charisma.

Yeah, it's dead, Jim.

But it's still a cool idea.

 

[Black]

You need to let go.

 

[St. Toxic]

Of course direct control is better

Of course? Indirect control is more appropriate; the main character giving orders during or before combat, with the AI interpreting the orders in their own way. Even works for games that are primarily tactical sims, where the leaderhead plays second fiddle.

TBS and RTS work well with direct control.

I like how in Van Buren the level of your control over the followers was going to depend on your Charisma.

Yeah, it's dead, Jim.

But it's still a cool idea.

It was dumbed down shit judging by design docs.

 

[Ausir]

Which design docs? The ones for the combat/follower system that were never leaked? We only have location design docs which don't really show us the details of the follower system.

 

[Azrael the cat]

As much fun as I had reloading every time my heavy weapons guy went on a spray-n-pay in my face, or that my doc sat around scratching his arse rather than healing me, I'd have to say 'direct control'. Yeah you can argue 'immersion'/realism, but you can also argue that you'd be smart enough to have a plan of action with pre-set roles in advance.

And I'd be pretty sure I'd have a conversation along the lines of: 'going to unload a clip of autonomatic weapon ammo into my face while shooting at someone behind me? You'd really better hope you kill me before I can react)'

 

[dr. one]

indirect control makes more sense roleplay-wise, but gameplay-wise the implementations sucked in comparison to similar games that went the direct control route so far.

good indirect control implementation would require complex AI and complex character development system to which the game is appropriately responsive, otherwise it´s just something done in the name of realism that:
a) ends up being not realistic anyway due to lacking AI
b) sacrifices the amount of options on player´s end

out of combat, letting party members have their own mind works well, letting them their own mind in combat is a good recipe how to sink even otherwise great game.

 

[janjetina]

Direct control, constrained by features (stats, "alignment") of the particular character (a low strength, low endurance character with high mental abilities would refuse to swim across the river, a good character would refuse to kill a child etc.)

But a good old fashioned murder of an innocent adult would be OK?

Anyway, I think that a system that could take these into account would probably work equally well without character control.

One requires checking a few state variables, while another requires a good decision algorithm and a good evaluation function for each companion. One is compatible with tactical combat, another reduces tactical options.

 

[Awor Szurkrarz]

"Tactical options" aren't worth much in single player cRPGs, where the AI is weaker than the player by definition.
They are good for multi-player wargaming where the opponent actually uses tactics.

For cRPGs, Arcanum-style orders and a line-of-sight check is more than enough.

 

[Jaime Lannister]

lol @ wyrmlord BAWWWWWWing in GD about this thread

direct control is best obviously, "role-playing" doesn't matter too much to me and companion ai is usually terrible

 

[Krraloth]

I always hated the way the AI fucks up even the most basic strategies you try to set up.

So my vote would go to the direct control.

But, the idea of having party members with a behaviour based on their personality it's really interesting...a pity it's not going to happen.
The AI suck too much and the only times where I was surprised about their actions were sadly scriped events.

 

[SCO]

I like how in Van Buren the level of your control over the followers was going to depend on your Charisma.

Yeah, it's dead, Jim.

 

[Kaanyrvhok]

It all depends on the level of indirect control. I would like to see a game where the devs create tactics based on the stuff that they do in the game so you can start off receiving orders before your level, experiences in the game, and ability scores/skills grants you the ability to call shots.

 

[MetalCraze]

"Tactical options" aren't worth much in single player cRPGs, where the AI is weaker than the player by definition.

Because AI is some otherworldly entity not dependable on programmers so it never can be a challenge.

For cRPGs, Arcanum-style orders and a line-of-sight check is more than enough.

Thanks god not all devs are so stupid

 

[Awor Szurkrarz]

"Tactical options" aren't worth much in single player cRPGs, where the AI is weaker than the player by definition.

Because AI is some otherworldly entity not dependable on programmers so it never can be a challenge.

If it's programmed well, then it can handle the followers well too .

 

[shihonage]

Well, results of this poll are quite telling. Unfortunately on RPG Codex it's hard to tell how legit/serious the results are, because everyone is screwing with everyone.

Another semi-recent poll had the fantasy setting prevail over sci-fi setting if I recall correctly... still confused about that one.

 

[OomJislaaik]

I like how in Van Buren the level of your control over the followers was going to depend on your Charisma.

Yeah, it's dead, Jim.

An incredibly well-researched and well-thought out rebuttal from our resident literary genius, Sco. Some may say he's the JK Rowling of the internet world, and others believe he's probably a two year old, banging on his dad's keyboard. I believe he's a rare gem, a slither of graphite in the coal mines of the internet.

As for the matter at hand, it boils down to context and depending on the game, either direct control is warranted or non. I personally prefer to have at least some control over my party members, and if that's not provided, it's fine too, however the limitation is generally the robustness of the AI.