Party control in CRPG's: Good or Bad?

I thought that now we have a variety of users with differring opinions (unlike 8 months ago, when there was really only one opinion), it is now time to start digging up old and boring topics so that we can have some kind of real discussion on them.

First of all, we need to define what kind of party control we are talking about. There are two main types that I wish to discuss (since I have a different point of view on both of them.)

• Player created parties
  I don't really have a problem with these kinds of parties, because you can pretend that you are roleplaying a group of characters, their social interactions with each other, the world and the story in which they find themselves in, instead of just a single character. This allows a lot more depth, and can be effective in emulating a P&P RPG session for some people. However, it depends on the style of game as to whether it is appropriate, some games (and I'll refuse mentioning any specifically, as that's one of the best ways to derail a thread, and I don't want to do that from the first post) intend to project a feeling of loneliness, which would only be destroyed by having extra party members around.
  In CRPG's, party based, with characters created by the player, can be a good option, probably the best, considering the alternatives for party control.

• NPC's - Completely controlled by player.
  In my opinion, this would have to be the stupidest genre convention that I have ever seen. In the first place, it was introduced as a way of fixing the problems with companion AI. In effect, it acts like somebody has completely missed the point of NPC's to begin with, and has just made matters worse.
  An example of this stupidity would be a situation in which a player directs an NPC to do something that the NPC's personality disagree's with. What do we do here? Do we take control away from the player, thus causing player frustration? Do we do nothing, resulting in the NPC's personality prior to joining the player being completely unimportant, or do we do something completely stupid, like having the NPC complain that it had to do something it didn't want to? Could we have a morale stat, that would make the character leave you if you did this too much? All things considered, I think that this solution just makes things a lot more difficult from a design standpoint. The problem hasn't been solved, just made a lot harder, due to idiotic problem solving techniques.
  Time for a quote from The Simpsons, one that I've used in just about every discussion about this topic.
  "I know! We'll dig our way out!"
  It makes a lot more sense if it's put into context, watch the episode "Homer the Detective" in Season 5.

• AI controlled NPC's
  This isn't really all that bad in theory, since you don't control the NPC's, you don't get frustrated when they don't do exactly what you want them to. In practice, they often, due to poor AI programming, do things that they shouldn't do, considering their supposed personality (Shooting you in the back with automatic weapons). Basically, for this to work, you'd have to spend a lot of time in programming AI scripts for companion NPC's. And, while you're at it, why not start programming better AI for enemy NPC's?
  AI takes up a lot of time, effort and skill to do right, and I'm assuming that in the games that have full NPC companion control, the developers were restricted in one of those areas.
  AI is one of those areas that is neglected, as the average gamer doesn't really notice how things work that often.

• A mix of the two. Part one - Player controlled party and joinable NPC's
  What should you do here? On one hand, inconsistency is bad, you have a group of characters that you can control, and a group that follows you, but can't really be controlled. It can lead to player frustration if you don't clearly define which character is which. On the other hand, it can be quite useful to have joinable NPC's as a means of plot development. It's a touchy subject, and one I haven't put too much thought into so far. I'll leave it for another day, and possibly another thread.

• A mix of the two. Part two - Some player control over companion NPC's.
  The PC is generally the leader of the group, so it seems reasonable that the player should have a degree of control over the rest of the party ie: what he can do with vocal commands. I haven't really put too much thought into this either, but it has been done before, with differing degrees of success. It may be the ideal solution to the problem of NPC control. But I'll leave this one to be discussed in depth to somebody else.

In conclusion, I think, out of the many ways of doing party based CRPG's, have a party of Player Characters seems to be the best, as it can provide more depth, and has some degree of logical justification (the player is the party itself).

Thanks for reading this - It's a bit longer than what I had intended.

Frankly, it depends on the game. On the game's setting and ruleset, to be specific. Fallout works best as a PC with AI companions because ultimately, Fallout is about the lone wanderer who saves the world for whatever reason. Beyond that, the SPECIAL system and the design of the games easily allows for one character to have the skills necessary to succeed.

However, a game like Baldur's Gate does need multiple player-controlled PCs, simply because the D&D ruleset is geared towards a party mechanic. You need a rogue to be stealthy, you need a mage to sling spells, you need a fighter to soak up damage and you need a cleric to patch him up. However, when done like Baldur's Gate did, it's purely nonsense since you effectively take control of a character who is not yours. Nobody is forcing you to play that character the way the designers intended. The only way they can force that is with particularly intelligently written AI scripts, something where an order to attack a good creature would cause a good party member to complain or even refuse, player frustration be damned, or to simply have a heap or scripted events occur that give the NPC a wealth of opportunities to remind the player that he's the dwarf who hates goblins because they ate his favorite hat.

It seems to me, then, that in a game which demands a party to be played properly, the ideal method is to have multiple player-created and controlled PCs, allowing the player to create the characters he wants with the outlook he wants, the party he wants and, ultimately, the game he wants. However, this also can be unsatisfying since it effectively neuters internal party interaction, which any PnP gamer can tell you is half the fun (Fred: "You bastard, that's my +2 sword!" Ted: "Fine. I'll sell it to you for a thousand gold pieces." Fred: "I sneak attack Ted."). ToEE attempts to fix this by tossing in up to three NPC party members who will join you for their own reasons, have much drama and be AI controlled. That's all well and nice, but if you have a base five person party and toss in three more henchmen, that's eight characters in the party, which is too damn many, even taking out the secret evil one who stabs you in the back (see above: drama).

The fact of the matter is that the party mechanic is very problematic in single-player CRPGs. It works a lot better in pure Pen and Paper or simple multiplayer where there's a player for each character.

I think that in CRPGs, it's far better to have a single PC fully controlled by the player. This is simply the best way to allow the player to focus on his character and how best to play him. To roleplay him. To develop solid character concepts that go beyond "a fighter who can soak up damage and maybe dish some out" or "mage who likes fire spells". Toss in a few AI controlled party members to help our poor protagonist out, and I think that's the best method.

Of course, Deathy mentions the issue of bad AI crippling computer-controlled party members. Well, the only real solution for that is evident: better AI. Frankly, I don't think it should be too hard to create an ally who won't shoot you in the back and stand in doorways all the time. Just whip the programmers a bit harder and dangle some donuts just out of reach. They'll manage to make something good.

My ultimate preference is one PC with AI controlled npcs.

I agree with Spazmo in that it depends on the game and setting.

Ideally, my preference would be a solo PC that can also recruit or attract henchmen or followers. These henchmen would follow orders in combat to the best of their abilities and their alignment (lawful would tend to follow your shouted orders, chaotic would not). You may or may not be able to see their inventory, and may or may not be able to use or take items (again, depending on the npc). It stands to reason that an NPC which you brought back from death would be alot more willing to follow a PC instructions than one that was just hired yesterday for 10 gp/day. It'd be good too, if communicating these instructions cost you move points(TB system, obviously). It's a bit of an abstraction, but if you're busy directing traffic and planning the battle, you're not going to be as effective as if you were just concentrating on fighting and up to your armpits in orc bits.

The other thing I'd change in my ideal setting would be to remove the permanence of the NPC (among other things). As it stands in most games, you get an NPC, and they're yours for the rest of the game, unless you want to ditch them: in which case most will faithfully sit around and wait for you to ask them to join with you again. I'd like to see games where the NPC left the party, did something else(I gotta take care of something tonite boss, i'll meet up with you in the morning) or otherwise showed some spark of possessing a life outside of the scope of the game. Grrr...funny, the more I think about it, the more I think NPC's have been so poorly handled in every aspect, that just addressing it properly would breathe some life into CRPGs. What about pay? Adds another dimension when you have to use half your treasure to pay off your hirelings. Oops, the thief got pissed when you didn't pay her what she thinks she deserved and, on her watch, skipped out with the bloody medallion of Mythar - Now you gotta track her down, get the medallion (which, undoubtably, the little trollop is gonna try to fence) and get it back to the rightful owners (who aren't likely going to compensate you for the lost time, extra effort and expense).

Yes, the gameplay itself is very important and should be a factor in choosing the system.

In Fallout and Arcanum, the player control was good. You had your charecter, and the other that came along with you. So you controled one, and the rest were controlled by AI.

In ToEE, you start by creating a party, so there shouldn't be any difference between the people in your starting party, they should all be controlled by you. But if you recurit followers, I don't see why you should control them.

Bottom line is, the charecters you create should be controlled by you, recurted followers should be controlled by the computer AI.

I agree with Volorun - one PC and AI NPCs. As far as the AI goes better AI is always..umm..better, but I never have had any real big problems with the games that used this scheme, namely the FOs and Arcanum. I rarely had problems in the FOs (the occasional "why are using the butter knife and not the SMG?") and in Arcanum the only AI funkiness was Virgil healing me until he passed out despite the fact that my high-tech PC resisted every attempt.
If the NPCs are AI controlled and the AI is not near perfect then I do like the ability to adjust their combat settings - when to use chems, spread out etc.. But having them AI controlled for me helps my sense of immersion. Frankly I hated the BG treatment - these are individuals but I can take full control of them, but they will still chime in with the occasional display of independence but not when in combat...yuck.

For me, I've always found it easier to identify with one individual in the game, as opposed to, say, five. Roleplaying is the game, not roles-playing, in my opinion. Even if they are created at the start of the game, isn't that abstraction for "the four paladins of Justice Fists that got together under the leadership of Sir Smite-A-Lot to smite some evil" or "the adventuring lover couple who found friendship in the drunken warrior gnome at the bar, and meeting a mage whose tower was destroyed in a freak accident, and insists that the adventuring lover couple is responsible -- therefore following them everywhere demanding restitution"? The concept that several individuals are bonded by a mysterious unifying mind seems unbelievable.

Is much of the fun in the game going to be the strategic and precise placement of your followers? If that's the case, I say parties fully controlled by the gamer is most helpful. While many seem to have found the BG treatment of this (dialogue boxes popping up voicing complaint, then the same obedience afterwards) lame and cheesy, I actually like it quite a bit. It's a good balance between offering the precision and strategy in combat and putting character inside those NPCs. Successful text-writing could be so much more powerful in conveying emotions, and adding a layer of depth to these models running around on the screen, obeying your every command.

Is much of the fun in the game going to be understanding the nature of these followers, and leading them so they accomplish your intent? In that case, then obviously fully-AI-controlled NPCs would serve the purpose. Using the PC's skills to reflect communication would be a nice touch, but ultimately, these NPCs have a mind of their own, and there really is no expecting that the crazy-sniper would not turn against the party at the sight of his feared cochroaches. However, in my opinion, in this type of implementation it's important to have some way of communicating -- either by voice or otherwise. Or else scenarios like the afore-mentioned Virgil-healing-and-failing-then-passing-out would occur, and there's not a thing you can do about it. It would be fun, methinks, to have a deaf NPC in the party where communication is difficult, or even impossible if the PC is not in the line-of-sight of him/her.

I must ditto the idea that NPCs really shouldn't join you for life. That's something which flattens out the character, and detracts greatly from believability. I think BG2's NPC-related quests is an attempt at addressing this problem, but it's up to debate whether that has succeeded.

Deathy said:

(and I'll refuse mentioning any specifically, as that's one of the best ways to derail a thread, and I don't want to do that from the first post)

Click to expand...

In that case, I must apologize for bringing up all these specific games, but I really feel it's much easier to work from examples that we've all seen. ("The inventory system in Super Mario Bros, maybe without the need to eat mushrooms to access it, would be the way to go, IMHO" as opposed to "An inventory system where you have all these items lined up next to each other -- no, not in a separate inventory screen, but rather contained in a little bubble right on the main interface -- and you can scroll through them one-by-one")

Player created parties
Player created party is a step toward strategic squad-based games where you have combat units with specific skills useful in certain situations lacking any personality or connection to a player. This gameplay style is good in pure hack&slash games like IWD2 where the goal is to combat waves of monsters and the fun part is to build an interesting party setup, develop a strategy that goes with it, etc; but it's not one of my favourites.

NPC's - Completely controlled by player.
It's like player created parties, only without fun of creating one to your liking. Absolutely pointless concept, and an oxymoron indeed.

AI controlled NPC's
This is a very good concept, of course, nothing is perfect, and that's why I never gave Ian or Marcus a burst weapon, but other then that playing Fallout and Arcanum was the most RPG fun I had in years. It adds an element of unpredictability in every fight, when I played IWD2 with my "commandos", I knew exactly how each fight would go, I could never be sure of that in Fallout, and not only because of the infamous burst in the back.
But like you said it requires a lot of time and polish (it was very annoying when Virgil was trying to heal my high tech char, wasting all his magick on me), and often this time could be spent on something else.

A mix of the two. Part one - Player controlled party and joinable NPC's
It's a mix designed to add some drama elements into strategic squad-based gameplay. I agree with Spazmo that 8 people is way too much, I rarely play with more then 4, and 8 sounds like a mini-army to me. Of course, I assume that I don't have to get all 8, but if the game was balanced for a higher number of players....well, let's not speculate, but wait and see, if anything I have faith in Troika's designs.

A mix of the two. Part two - Some player control over companion NPC's.
This I think is the ultimate concept if done right. I'd call it player coordinated NPCs
It gives a player an ability to communicate with NPCs (but not Sawyer's style) and indicate what you want without ever assuming control. The response should depend on many factors: NPC's own strategy that's generated as he enters a combat, NPC's intelligence, NPC's style of combat, and NPC's faith, beliefs, morals, etc.
For example:
NPC's strategy Let's say a NPC is protecting a flank. It does not matter whether he decided to do it himself, was told via Fallout-style pre-battle command or figured out based on his place in a party Wizardry-style. So he's concerned mostly about holding a flank and if a player indicates that he wants him over there, the NPC may refuse if he thinks that holding a flank is more important unless...
NPC's intelligence ...unless he's dumb and follows orders easily. By the same token, a smart and especially smarter then you NPC may disregard your comands 'cause he knows what to do better then you do.
NPC's style of combat If NPC is a berserk, he's much more likely to jump in the middle of a fight, and less likely to play it safe and visa versa, the best a character who's very concerned about his own safety can do is to engage when the odds are good, like backstab or attack a wounded enemy.
NPC's faith and beliefs Just to add a little flavor. If a NPC is terrified of undead he would stay away from them no matter what. A paladin may refuse to attack a person from behind, a cleric may hesitate attacking creatures under the patronage of his deity directly, and so on.

The coordination itself should be simple, you click on a NPC and then click where you want him, if you click on an enemy, he should attack, if you click on another NPC, he should help. The manner of help/attack is up to a NPC, he may rush to help or may cast a healing/protective spell, he may abandon his position and engage in a melee or he may throw a knife, etc. What do you guys think?

Spazmo said:

ToEE attempts to fix this by tossing in up to three NPC party members who will join you for their own reasons, have much drama and be AI controlled. That's all well and nice, but if you have a base five person party and toss in three more henchmen, that's eight characters in the party, which is too damn many, even taking out the secret evil one who stabs you in the back (see above: drama).

Click to expand...

I'm stumped over why the player will create 5 instead of 4 PCs in ToEE. 4 is the holy number of D&D parties. Very strange. I am curious to see how PC party + recruitables works out. If done well, I think it could be an interesting compromise.

Also, am I the only one who found Ian's burst-fire-in-the-back somehow endearing?

XJEDX said:

]I'm stumped over why the player will create 5 instead of 4 PCs in ToEE. 4 is the holy number of D&D parties. Very strange. I am curious to see how PC party + recruitables works out. If done well, I think it could be an interesting compromise.

Also, am I the only one who found Ian's burst-fire-in-the-back somehow endearing?

Click to expand...

I think you may be the only one who did find it endearing; unless by endearing you mean "goddamn you miserable bastard what the fuck are you doing?" altho honestly this didn't happen to me that often.

And I concur: *8* party members is way too many. They are claiming that you can solo or go with 4 or whatever, but I am having a hard time imagining the balance of the game when 8 is possible/encouraged. I don't think I have ever been in a PnP campaign with more than 5.

XJEDX said:

I'm stumped over why the player will create 5 instead of 4 PCs in ToEE. 4 is the holy number of D&D parties. Very strange. I am curious to see how PC party + recruitables works out. If done well, I think it could be an interesting compromise.

Click to expand...

Simple. You have your base four party members (tank, arcane firepower, rogue for stealth and cleric or druid). Then you have a fifth spot for the bard, because every party needs a bard.

I have. It gets a lilttle wacky and very little gets done.

The holy 4. Well, consider this: 4 may be the optimal number for PnP, but the most common number in CRPGs is 6.
So maybe 5 is just a compromise between 4 and 6? (With the talks moderated by the letter C, of course). I'm finding 5 difficult to work with actually (I do pre-game party planning- it could be considered disturbing, but hey) I keep finding a hole in useful skills/abilities. Or it could be I'm too used to the IE standard 3 fighter-type battle-line, which may not be necessary in TOEE.

I also find myself conflicted on the NPCs. I want to try them all out, but 8 soaks up way too much XP. I'm considering doing an evil party second time around and just using revolving NPCs as sacrificial fodder- use them until they get boring, and then send them off 'scouting ahead'


Endearing? You probably are the only one. Personally I took to giving NPCs only non-burst weapons and just accepting that as soon as I run into super mutants, they're pretty much guarranteed to be dead anyway.

Voss said:

I also find myself conflicted on the NPCs. I want to try them all out, but 8 soaks up way too much XP.

Click to expand...

I'm considering creating only one character and I'll make up the rest of the party with NPCs in ToEE. Then I'll be back to the magic four. I'm not really sure if this is feasible in terms of difficulty, especially if some NPCs might betray me, but it'll sure make for exiting and unpredictable adventuring . I'll keep the ironman mode for a party of 8.

Voss said:

I also find myself conflicted on the NPCs. I want to try them all out, but 8 soaks up way too much XP. I'm considering doing an evil party second time around and just using revolving NPCs as sacrificial fodder- use them until they get boring, and then send them off 'scouting ahead'

Click to expand...

Whether or not that will be possible is debatable. We don't actually have many details on how NPC party members are controlled in or out of combat. Someone make a note to ask at the next dev chat...

I thought Troika has been pretty clear that the player controls NPCs movement out of combat. The player has no control over inventory or weapons. The most recent info (march 2003) about in combat control mentions the player being given the option whether to control the NPCs or let the Ai do the work. Source the Uberfaq.

Q. Can you control the NPC follower's actions?
A1. (T.C. - Game Banshee - 2/3) We are still debating the control issue in combat. Our NPC's have their own agendas, so we'd prefer that they control themselves. But given the limitation of AI and also the fact that a lot of people prefer controlling their followers in combat, we may allow such control, with ramifications later. For instance, if you make your good follower kill a good creature, he may leave the party after combat is over.

A2. (T.C. 3/27) Currently you control the PC's and the NPC's outside of combat, but only the PC's in combat. We may allow NPC control inside of combat too, but if you make them do something they hate (like make a paladin kill a good person), they will leave the party.

A3. (T.C. 3/29) Right now, you have no control, but we are adding the ability to take total control. We will probably end up giving you the option, for both PC's and NPC's, of controlling them in combat. If you choose not to control them, the AI will do it.

A4. (T.C. 3/29) There will be no difficulty settings associated with the control. Think of it this way: you control your NPC's except when it's safe to let them go, e.g. there are only 2 rats left and you let the fighter NPC's go on auto.

Click to expand...

I really have high hopes for the AI, especially the "scouting" ability of monsters and NPCs:

Q. Does the AI have any strategy tricks up its sleeve?
A. (T.C. 3/29) We've added several cool new AI features. One is scouting, which I have mentioned before. Some monsters, upon seeing you, do NOT run to attack you. Instead, they run back to a group of their friends and alert them, and then they ALL come for you. We also have alert points, which are like day and night stand points, but they represent where the NPC will stand if the area is on alert. So if you screw up and trip an alarm or otherwise tip off that you are in a secure area, the NPC's will all head to their alert points, which are usually crucial places like stairs and staging areas.

Q. Will enemies avoid pathing options that lead them into ambushes?
A. (H.N. 2/13) we are hoping to get the AI to a state where "smarter" monsters will recognize a path that incurs a multitude of AoO's and choose to do/go something different.

Q. Will melee enemies be smart enough not to chase after your fastest moving character, who is running in circles?
A. (S.M. 2/6) Kinda, the AI will pays attention to who is threatening it the most. This usually lessens the strength of kiting techniques, however I'm sure certain strategies are better than others.

Q. Will enemies be smart enough to open a closed door?
A. (S.M. 2/6) Only if they have attached thumbs, and the brain power to operate those thumbs.

Q. Will Monsters have random HP?
A. (Gamespy - 2/7) Yes.

Click to expand...

Spazmo said:

Simple. You have your base four party members (tank, arcane firepower, rogue for stealth and cleric or druid). Then you have a fifth spot for the bard, because every party needs a bard.

Click to expand...

I was actually thinking the same thing--either that, or a monk. I never play a monk. I really like bards; ever since I played Icewind Dale 2. I, embarrassingly enough, had a Drow Bard as the leader of my IW2 party. Amazing how powerful--dare I say uber?--they can make your party.

Oops--sorry Sabotai, I haven't been keeping up with my ToEE facts.

XJDEX, 3.5E bards are even more powerful. They get 6 + int skill points per level instead of four, they get no arcane spell failiure for their bard spells when wearing light armour (!), they get new bardic music abilities and a race now has the bard as a favoured class: GNOMES!

Spazmo said:

XJDEX, 3.5E bards are even more powerful. They get 6 + int skill points per level instead of four, they get no arcane spell failiure for their bard spells when wearing light armour (!), they get new bardic music abilities and a race now has the bard as a favoured class: GNOMES!

Click to expand...

You know, from what I've read, there's a lot to 3.5e that I don't like. Personally, I'm all for a gnome pogrom; I think halflings and dwarves are enough "little people" for D&D.

And anyway, it's Jed. Just Jed...

Jed then,
What's with the two Xs? Was Jed too plain? Or do they symbolize the x in Codex?

Spazmo,
You were right about the fact that Troika still is debating the way in which they are going to handle NPC control in combat. Party control out of combat is less an issue. It's not that difficult for AI to follow your PC around. Combat is a whole different matter though.

XJEDX said:

Also, am I the only one who found Ian's burst-fire-in-the-back somehow endearing?

Click to expand...

You're certainly not the only one. To be "an Ian" has achieved a place within my gaming lexicon at least. It certainly makes him memorable, much in the same way that Virgil is lovable for the (already mentioned) healing until he faints, and also for picking up springs, flowers, bits of metal, and arrows that I can't sell, that I had to meticulously drag and drop into containers (pre-patch) so he could carry something usefull.

Sabotai said:

Jed then,
What's with the two Xs? Was Jed too plain? Or do they symbolize the x in Codex?

Spazmo,
You were right about the fact that Troika still is debating the way in which they are going to handle NPC control in combat. Party control out of combat is less an issue. It's not that difficult for AI to follow your PC around. Combat is a whole different matter though.

Click to expand...

Well, in theory the AI for NPCs should be most of the AI for monsters, with a few additions. Spellcasters need a "don't blow us up" check, but then so do monsters (though actually I'd like to see some monsters do this anyway- its seems perfectly acceptable to me for a particularly sadistic villain to try to pin the heroes with fodder then fireball the lot)

Following, like you said is fairly easy. The main thing is keeping them focused in combat and using skills and abilities outside of combat. Particularly rogues and spellcasters. (At this point, apparently, monster AI is capable of doing trip attacks and mobbing the victim so there is multiple flanking and attacks of opportunity on the victim. So I'm not too concerned about general combat AI)

The kicker will be if there are general settings for the NPCs to do impressive stuff. Like ignore the melee and go after spellcasters, make an effort to finish off almost dead monsters and the like.

And of course, not do incredibly stupid things on a regular basis. I don't want to find myself saying, "oh, for crying out loud, he isn't dead *again* is he?"

Sabotai said:

Jed then, What's with the two Xs? Was Jed too plain? Or do they symbolize the x in Codex?

Click to expand...

Yeah, Jed is just too plain. My real name is Tim, but my little brother and my oldest friends call me Jed. XJEDX just became my nick during the days a few years ago when we would while the hours away playing TFC online. Oh, what great fun that used to be...

I prefer to play as a single character, with AI controlled followers. Roleplaying an entire party always strike me as a bit odd, but then I haven't played many tabletop games, but if we go down that road I want to create the entire party so that I'm in control of the kind of characters I want rather than what the game throws at me (worst example would be BG2 where the only decent Thief NPC wasn't with you for the last half of the game). Controlling a NPC is just plain wrong and is pretty much like trying to solve a problem by ignoring it. I'm interested in seeing how the party dynamics in ToEE will work out, eight characters seem like too many.

My personal preference leans toward the Fallout model. I prefer to focus on a single player character and addling NPCs for tactical and 'flavour' reasons depending on how well they are scripted etc. It adds another level of choices and consequences to a game.

"Oh god! Why did I EVER let that screwball join my party!?"

Having said that I also enjoy the tactical combat options opened up by total party control as in IWD and other IE games. I guess that is where the rather schizoid situation of 'wiseass NPCs' who become mindless automatons during combat comes from. It's a case where 'fun' over-rides internal consistency.

Also, many people are gaily throwing around the 'simple' step of improving AI - but is it really that simple? If it was, why does the pathfinding in the IE engine still suck after several iterations? Seeing as just 'following' the PC (or party leader in this case) is the simplest task on the list of things you expect AI to achieve why weren't the whips and donuts broken out years ago?

That question was rhetorical, as I don't want to start any more game designer bashing, it just seems that for whatever reason, AI either has a low priority or high level of difficulty, or both.

I too will be looking with interest at TOEE, as I have read several quotes about the AI of opponents able to exploit the various combat tactics in 3.5e, so I assume the NPC AI will do the same. That is one of the advantages of a turn-based combat model - telling NPCs (both allies and enemies) what to do, and where to go is much simpler if you can do it in turn rather than all together in realtime.

Skorpios said:

Having said that I also enjoy the tactical combat options opened up by total party control as in IWD and other IE games. I guess that is where the rather schizoid situation of 'wiseass NPCs' who become mindless automatons during combat comes from. It's a case where 'fun' over-rides internal consistency.

Click to expand...

That brings to my mind anothere condition, if you will, as to when it is better to use a party vs. a single PC. In a game like Icewind Dale--a combat-centric dungeon crawl (and there's really nothing wrong with such a game. Hell, most of the oft-vaunted PnP games are dungeon crawls anyways)--should use a player created and controlled party. But any game that wants to center on roleplaying--such as Fallout, Arcanum or Baldur's Gate--would be far better off using a single PC mechanic.

Skorpios said:

Also, many people are gaily throwing around the 'simple' step of improving AI - but is it really that simple? If it was, why does the pathfinding in the IE engine still suck after several iterations? Seeing as just 'following' the PC (or party leader in this case) is the simplest task on the list of things you expect AI to achieve why weren't the whips and donuts broken out years ago?

Click to expand...

I don't want to bash anyone in particual either, but the failing of BioWare's AI is simply because they have incompetent AI programmers. Just becasue Bio can't manage it doesn't mean another company wouldn't be capable of writing solid AI, and I desperately hope ToEE will prove me right.