Controllable NPCs (Just a thought)

Gunslinger said:
In Neverwinter Nights, you could control your one NPC to a degree and, in my opinion, those NPCs were one of the most well-rounded interactions (with their plethora of side quests and pertinent level ups)
Click to expand...

NWN and a positive opinion in the SAME sentance!!
 
You can't compare a Role-Playing-Game to an FPS.

"Controllable" NPCs is a giant contradiction!!

NON-PLAYER-CHARACTER=NPC
You are YOUR character in an RPG, not 5 different ones.
 
Gunslinger said:
Rosh, I know you may wince at this example but in Baldur's Gate 2, you could still control your NPCs and they would still have side quests, talk to you, betray you, everything that a rounded charcter would do, etc. In Neverwinter Nights, you could control your one NPC to a degree and, in my opinion, those NPCs were one of the most well-rounded interactions (with their plethora of side quests and pertinent level ups).

Now, let me just expand my first comment. I'm not saying that the NPCs should be like those in Fallout Tactics in which you control every single one for every single action. And I never I wished for *direct* control of your NPCs. Falling back to the Baldur's Gate 2 example, your NPCs still could still act independantly with their scripts but you could move them aside or have them run away in crucial situations.

(snip irrelevent bullshit about giving commands to squadmates in some FPS with a single key and whatever)
Click to expand...

You really do have a problem reading, do you? I even pointed out why the NPCs in Baldur's Garbage and every other Inbred Engine game, and NWN, are hardly to the same depth and individuality as those in Fallout and Arcanum. Especially those in Arcanum. I pointed out a good example that you obviously couldn't understand or didn't bother to think about.

Yet if you put in controls to prevent the player from doing that, you're almost making it near a true NPC anyways.

Let me clarify more for you:
Giving your followers commands is not the same as making them controllable. If they are true NPCs, they may tell you to sod off if they don't want to do what you tell them to. That doesn't mean they are controllable, does it?

So at this point, you might either pick one of the following and stick with it:
Independent and in-depth NPCs that act according to themselves.
Controllable Inbred Engine bullshit.
 
Gunslinger said:
Now, let me just expand my first comment. I'm not saying that the NPCs should be like those in Fallout Tactics in which you control every single one for every single action. And I never I wished for *direct* control of your NPCs. Falling back to the Baldur's Gate 2 example, your NPCs still could still act independantly with their scripts but you could move them aside or have them run away in crucial situations. Additionally, the NPC control wouldn't have to be a direct control so that they lack all personality and character. In Arcanum, you could direct your NPCs to attack, defend, run away, get out of the way, or lay off by just right clicking on their portraits.
Click to expand...

In BG/BG2, you did have exact control over them. When they start bitching about how the party's direction is going, you can simply strip them of what they have, then send them head long in to combat on a suicide run. How does that make any sense?

If they're already claiming they don't like what you're doing, do you think they'd be willing to die stupidly for you?

This is the problem with schemas like Baldur's Gate, where NPCs have been so bastardized, the off and on again control scheme allows for utterly stupid situations. Instead, BioWare should have just picked one or the other, either they're a full party under your control, or they're individuals run by AI.

As for the Fallout AI being "Not too bright", that's true. However, the solution would be to make the AI smarter, rather than fuck up the nature of the NPCs in the game with a seriously half assed system like the Infinity Engine did.
 
Oh, won't somebody think of the interactivity?

"Controllable NPCs" are a bad and very much broken idea, from arguably the worst game development house ever to achieve success, those wacky Canadians, Bioware. If the AI is FUBAR, you fix the AI, you don't skirt around the issue by making the player control it.

If you were playing PnP, you can't order your NPCs around, unless the want to follow them, and even then the way they carry out those orders is open for interpretation. Party NPCs aren't necessarily there to enhance your chances of winning in conflict, they are there to spice things up by having a character with their own personality, agenda and style. Bioware's broken idea of controllable NPCs is a regression in design theory.
 
I hope NPC companions go bye bye in FO3(never to be made anyway) .I played Fallout all alone , was really fun , gave that feeling of lone wanderer in the unforgiving wastes... in Fallout 2 i was forced to create a party as the combat was very hard by
myself but even here Sulik was more than enough , the rest were mules till i got the car ......... so they could ditch NPC's and give me 2 mules like the ones from Dungeon Siege , i need nothing else :twisted:
 
OsirisGod said:
I hope NPC companions go bye bye in FO3(never to be made anyway) .I played Fallout all alone , was really fun , gave that feeling of lone wanderer in the unforgiving wastes... in Fallout 2 i was forced to create a party as the combat was very hard by myself but even here Sulik was more than enough , the rest were mules till i got the car ......... so they could ditch NPC's and give me 2 mules like the ones from Dungeon Siege , i need nothing else :twisted:
Click to expand...

Actually, one of the things I liked about Fallout was that you couldn't take NPCs everywhere with you, and at some point, to keep them alive, you had to leave them behind and face things by yourself if you wanted them to be kept alive.

Fallout was the story of the Vault Dweller, not the story of The Legion of the Vault Dweller.
 
OsirisGod said:
I hope NPC companions go bye bye in FO3(never to be made anyway) .I played Fallout all alone , was really fun , gave that feeling of lone wanderer in the unforgiving wastes... in Fallout 2 i was forced to create a party as the combat was very hard by
myself but even here Sulik was more than enough , the rest were mules till i got the car ......... so they could ditch NPC's and give me 2 mules like the ones from Dungeon Siege , i need nothing else :twisted:
Click to expand...
Disagree with that, I do, I like companions but like most of the rest of you I like them to be just that, nothing more, nothing less.
CRPG is about me, my character (perhaps it is only me but I find it hard to role-play more than one character at a time) and the way I act in the environment the developer provides me with..
(Sort of struck me that this might be seen as if I want a static world and that is not the point of this incoherent post..)
 
Mikal Stark said:
"The IPLY team should reduce the number of possible NPCs, so to increase the lone wanderer feel of the game. However, their functionality should be increased, so as you can instruct them to use THEIR skills in place of your when necessary.
Click to expand...

This already works in FO2 a lot of times.
 
They should play a less supportive role and stay with you only on occasions which you generally do not control. I wouldn't mind seeing times when you tell them to help you and they show up of their own accord instead of tagging along with you all of the time. Except for dogmeat - he should be the only one that maintains a permanent bond if you make friends with him.
 
I like the idea of npc's helping you at one point of the game and choosing to leave you at another. It's not a blood pact for life deal. Much like the trapper smiley, or under certain circumstances, a prolonged period of time.(Goris avenging the deathclaw race) Of course, leaving when the deed is done.
 
This is dumb, I think your whole need for control over your NPCs would be sated just by the ability to issue some sort of order/tactics to them. Allowing you total control over them denigrades the role playing element as previously stated in this thread. I think that once you think a little deeper on this you'll find that improved AI and the ability to issue tangible orders (though they might not always be followed) is a much better route than allowing the player total control.
 
Killzig said:
I think that once you think a little deeper on this you'll find that improved AI and the ability to issue tangible orders (though they might not always be followed)
Click to expand...

Now that'd be great...Not actually commanding a zombie or having no control at all, but the ability to actually shout things at the loss of action points and the risk of being ignored (though that would become annoying soon enough)...

"Ian! Move forward"

"Hell no!" (Ian moves back and shoot you "accidentally")
 
Killzig said:
This is dumb, I think your whole need for control over your NPCs would be sated just by the ability to issue some sort of order/tactics to them. Allowing you total control over them denigrades the role playing element as previously stated in this thread. I think that once you think a little deeper on this you'll find that improved AI and the ability to issue tangible orders (though they might not always be followed) is a much better route than allowing the player total control.
Click to expand...

This could be combined with the "trust" system that J.E. Sawyer has talked about, basically meaning that NPC's are more likely to do what you say if they have a high degree of trust in you, although you'd never have full control of them. So, if Ian has followed you around for two weeks and have reasons to believe that you are a decent fellow, he's more likely to follow your commands than Kattija who just joined up and isn't quite sure about you yet ("What do you mean 'Remove your Armor'?")

Being able to issue commands in combat (perhaps with an AP cost) could give it a more tactical flavor.
 
Not really tactical, but a bit more role-playing, as the character of the NPC is being fleshed out a bit.

I still don't agree with how it was said that after a bit you control them in part (making it an issue to pander up to the NPC to get to control them in part or whole), but that might have gotten mixed with another discussion. They should just get a bit more trusting, but still hold to their morals and beliefs.
 
Kharn said:
Killzig said:
I think that once you think a little deeper on this you'll find that improved AI and the ability to issue tangible orders (though they might not always be followed)
Click to expand...

Now that'd be great...Not actually commanding a zombie or having no control at all, but the ability to actually shout things at the loss of action points and the risk of being ignored (though that would become annoying soon enough)...

"Ian! Move forward"

"Hell no!" (Ian moves back and shoot you "accidentally")
Click to expand...

Yeah-yeah. I think it'd be better to not be able to control NPCs, but kinda make it more of a subjective thing...
 
I admit that when Sulik or Cassidy killed other members of the party with a burst was annoying but I think that having control over th NPCs like the other squad members in Fallout Tactics would take away from the Role-playing connection with the central character.

The only answer I can see is just better AI for the NPCs to stop them doing really stupid things like killing your companions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top