Originally Posted by Wormerine
I suppose we just appreciate and expect different things from an RPG Robert, as you keep bringing RPG titles that I would consider narratively inadequate: Inquisition, Skyrim, D:OS2 are not titles I would never use as an example of good narratives in RPGs, and I expect better from an RPG, especially a self proclaimed sequel to BG1&2.

In a roleplaying game, I am asked to roleplay a character - so build a character in my mind and try to act as him or her in game. If relations between my PC and companions don't make sense, Interaxtions between my PC and companions collpase. Game sends me mixed signals narratively and mechanically, and that prevents roleplaying. How can I roleplay? The game is being a bad *acting" partner, pitching you a scenario but than not following through on that.

Except that the scenario I painted out doesn't just include Skyrim, or Inquisition. I mentioned DOS 2 because it has the same situation with the companions, you can play them as the main character if you choose to. I never saw it as a problem then, and I don't now. However, the "the story is the main character's story" happens in every RPG, except for, off the top of my head, both IWD games, because there we made the whole party. So, because there's no good character interaction in those, they aren't good narrative games? Then there's the whole "what happens with the companions in Act 2"? What about Act 3? In the epilogue? How much are you expecting to get in Act 1? Or is it the "but Tav doesn't have a personal story" thing? The entire game is Tav's personal story, if one rolls Tav up after launch. If that's bad story telling, then it's pointless to compare this to any other game, because they're all bad. The main campaign is always the main character's "personal story". It's more than a bit odd that this wasn't a problem in any other games. But here, where the initial battle cry was "but DOS 3", it's suddenly a major problem?

It's one thing to not like the companions. That's a very subjective thing, and people are going to be all over the place. I despise Alistair in Dragon Age Origins, for example, while he's fairly popular around that community. It's another thing to dislike them but say "but they can be the main character, and Larian shouldn't have done that, and shouldn't have spent the development time creating their stories". This is an argument that I've seen on these forums, after all. To the point where "game developers that make interesting companions always give them something" is a rote argument. It's interesting that I point to Skyrim specifically because I don't want these companions to wind up like the Vanilla companions in Skyrim, that exist to be cannon fodder, or stewards, and to marry one for a shop in one of your houses. They have no intrinsic value beyond that, and that's what "Larian shouldn't be spending any dev time on them" will deliver. No thanks.