Is a cRPG being faithful if it allows direct control of NPCs

[hanssolo]

RPGs have always been about playing with toy soldiers. If you want to makebelieve you are one of the toy soldiers, you don't need a complex ruleset or a computer intermediary, just fucking go outside and prance around in the woods or some shit. Or are nü-CRPGers so witless their imaginations are vestigial and useless without persistant input to keep them "immersed"?

 

[Surf Solar]

As long as the game clearly indicates that it is centered around a bond of travellers, an adventurer group etc who do stuff together, then I am all for controlling multiple characters. If the story/game is clearly centered around one guy/gal then it is ridicolous to have some additional guys all at your disposal/control.

 

[villain of the story]

Please, stop, GF. We don't need to hear that kind of bs around here. ESF is more cherishing of such views.

 

[Wyrmlord]

No, do go on, Gordon Freeman, regardless of what anyone thinks. Don't listen to the haters. We need all kinds of views here. I, for one, don't want a monolithic Codex.

I don't know why new guys lecture new guys like they are an authority here.

 

[jancobblepot]

Wargamers can't handle a bullet in their backs

 

[Awor Szurkrarz]

Tactician skill. Failure - the NPC does what he wants. Success - the NPC follows an order. Significant success - the player controls movements of the NPC.

You cannot expect, in RL, that your every order will be obeyed. It is not realistic. Your subordintate may consider something too dangerous, or just dont hear your command. Or he may think that he has a better idea how to win the fight.
Direct control = game of chess (if playing with toy soldiers sounds too demeaning).
Role Playing = pretending that you ARE the character on screen (if immersion is too much of a buzzword)

There could be AI overrides when the player would try to do something wrong when controlling the cNPC. The point of the direct control is to emulate the player successfully communicating the commander's intent to the character.

Another solution would be including advanced planning tools and hiring a good AI specialist to do the AI. AI and Command & Control tends to be neglected in computer games.

Wargamers can't handle a bullet in their backs

To be honest, an AI that doesn't take line of sight into account is an extremely shit AI and even if the player has party control, the enemy AI will still do retarded shit like trying to shot him through 3 allies. It just shouldn't happen.

 

[DragoFireheart]

There could be AI overrides when the player would try to do something wrong when controlling the cNPC. The point of the direct control is to emulate the player successfully communicating the commander's intent to the character.

I like that idea and think it's a good compromise. I never like how I could get a Paladin in BG2 to kill innocent civilians. It was generally very out of character without a specific context for them to allow me to kill them (Keldorn getting cheated on).

Another solution would be including advanced planning tools and hiring a good AI specialist to do the AI. AI and Command & Control tends to be neglected in computer games.

If it's neglected in computer games, what would one expect from console games?

 

[R3]

party control myself I care less about roleplaying and more about tactical combat mainly thats is why RTS is my favorite genre and my favorite Rpg is the hybrid called Jagged Alliance.

 

[mondblut]

A CRPG player "roleplays" a group of people playing tabletop RPG, each with his own character forming a party. A larper can compliment his roleplaying by pretending he's fighting himself over a pizza or had lost a d12.

That said, I don't mind AI-controlled additional followers (DM-controlled NPCs working with the party at one moment or another are an old staple), but only as an auxiliary units to a fully controlled and fully customized player party.