Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - Mega-threads and Guides Party Size Discussion

If respecting the legacy would give sucess and good sales, The fallout games of Bethesda, the last Final fantasy games or even the GTA games should´ve been failures.

People do not need nor want to play the same games again, unless it´s FIFA or a game that precisely wants to ride on nostalgia.

Another viewpoint into this is strengths and weaknesses of your party. If you have 6 members, you will have the right tool for everything in the game. However, if you have only 4 members, there might be some areas where you are lacking, you have weaknesses. This gives you an opportunity to be creative.

No healing? Well perhaps you need to stock lots of health potions, magical items or take another route and avoid taking any damage.

Nobody to search & disarm traps? Perhaps you need to make your tank capable of taking the hits then.

This means more replayability too, because if your first playthrough didn't have any arcane casters, perhaps quests and approaches you take are completely different than if you had one?

Ever since the first announcement of BG3, I have been thinking 5 would be the dream number for a party.

I know 5e gives people enough freedom to get by in combat/story mechanics with 4, but 5 feels better to me -- and not just for the combat system or mechanics (although yes, for different combinations there) but for story flavor specifically. Different companion combinations for personalities and banter shenanigans and interjections. It's just more interesting, and I don't think 5 is too many to be a tight-knit group going through a crazy experience in a big grand adventure together. The story itself, a shared tadpoling vs PC is the special hero going through something unique to them, in a way lends itself to having an extra companion; they wouldn't need some outlandish/random reason to join up with the main character.

Different combinations of companions adds to replayability for a lot of people, but the more limited the spots... I'm not sure how to explain it as well as others in this thread have except to say if it's too limited, it feels tedious to replay for that reason. For example, I have zero desire to go through DOS2 again to experience the two companions I left out of my party; it doesn't feel like it would be different enough. As in, I might play through DOS2 again for another reason, but the companions aren't one of the factors. In BG, the option to mix-and-match companions has always been one of (and sometimes the only) factor in a replay, for me.

And I know, I do get it, this isn't the BG of old and obviously a lot goes into these decisions. I know it could be only 4 for a number of reasons. It could be that 5e is aimed at 4 people so 4 people it is. It could be that we can collect a certain number of companions at our camp and switch them out so it's hardly punishing. It could be that there will be less banter and interjections overall and so we're simply not missing out on anything there. Or it's a limitation related to multiplayer. Or it could be engine troubles. Or a combination of those reasons, or none of them.

Will we be playing BG3 with a party of 4? Probably. Can we do that just fine, no complaints on getting through a fight or story area? Sure. But clearly the opinions vary on the overall vibe and replayability that decision actually gives the game and I do think it extends beyond nostalgia. If I was just nostalgic, I would say six members, but I do agree that would be too many here. 4 seems to be the norm these days, but for me, 4 always feels limiting in terms of story, and a little boring for combat.

Six character party seems quite oldschool. I would love to see it, but I also like the closeness and tightness of a four man party.

I do not understand how someone who pays attention to this can think that Larian *isnt* trying to ride the "THE NEXT BALDURS GATE GAME!" hypetrain. But you're right about one thing and thats that the core audience for a game in 2020 wont be players who were adolescents in 2000. And I'm fine with that, I was just hoping I would see a glimmer of the good old days, you know?

One thing about the reduced party size is that it makes balancing easier because you'll have less variables. A problem with PF:K is that its quite hard in the beginning but gets increasingly easier once you have some levels because you as a player has more room to optimize and 4 chess pieces instead 6 reduce variance.

I don't understand how someone who pays attention to what Larian has revealed so far, can think that they do. Did you get a single nostalgia hit so far? I didn't and BG2 is my very very very dearest game ever. I am pretty sure that for many potential player "next game from Larian" carries more weight then "the next Baldur's Gate game". I was convinced from the very beginning that Larian will be better of serving their existing fanbase first, rather then trying to create something that nostalgia fueled BG1&2 fans will accept.

I don't call this replayability... I call this a boring and bad gamedesign that reduce my possibilities to force replayability.

Assuming you're playing a custom character, if I'm not wrong :
3 companions out of 10 is 120 possibilities.
5 companions out of 10 is 252 possibilities.
Both numbers are important if you want to talk about replayability and choices.

Of course that numbers don't care about alignement and character's personnality/compatibility.

I hope they'll give an option for a team of 6 and I hope we'll have many "followers" that aren't animals or creatures...

My initial point was that I dont feel any nostalgia and I thought that was a mistake. Which is wierd since if this game was D:OS3 and not BG3 it wouldnt get near as much attention. Sure, people would be looking forward "the next Larian game" but the fact that it has the name of the most iconic roleplaying game in computer history is what elevates it to something else. I mean its pretty much the main grief people have with the game: "Its not Baldurs gate, its D:OS3". You're genuinely confusing me here because I think its so blatantly obvious that they wanted to hitch a ride on the Baldurs Gate hypetrain that when you disagree youre basically telling me that water isnt wet.

And we already told you that they are not using nostalgia as PR or advertise ties with previous games nowhere besides the name. They are not using characters, mechanics, isometric, story, timeline, character and world design or even the same edition of the previous games.

Witch means they want to make their own game.

Sure. But they *are* using the BG name. And that counts for A LOT. I mean, exactly because of everything you just listed ("They are not using characters, mechanics, isometric, story, timeline, character and world design or even the same edition of the previous games"), why does it need the BG name? The game has nothing (or at best extremely little) in common with the original BG games, so why call it BG3? It would've been absolutely appropriate to make it a new IP game. But both WotC and Larian decided it should be called BG3. Clearly the BG name matters, and that can only be because they both expect the BG name, just by itself, will draw in a bunch of potential buyers who would otherwise likely bypass the game. So, not so much nostalgia as name recognition.

I may or may not agree with the notion that the game is worthy to be called BG, but I have to say that Wotc are the ones that allow them to use the name, so they have all the rights to use it, so I´m not going to be swamped in another discussion about if they´re worthy of the name, if they should call it the game this or that because it´s pointless. It changes nothing.


What I´m going to say is that they could make the game they want to. They do not have to be restrained by the expectations of some people would have simply because of the name, and they never confirmed nor feed nor promised to keep those expectations. They always said that they are going to work closely with WotC, that whey want to make a D&D game, that they want to make a party based game, that they are willing to listen to the player´s feedback , but they never said that they want to make yet another "spiritual successor" of the game.
I say, let them do their own vision of the game. They own it.

Yes for sure. I have no desire to reopen that can of worms either. My point has nothing to do with the question of whether larian should/has the right to/is justified in using the BG name. That is a completely moot issue as you say, and I agree.

My point simply is that one cannot say WotC/Larian's decision to use that name is a neutral or arbitrary decision. It is indisputably a *calculated* decision meant to help sell the game to a wider audience than they would get if they did not use that name. That's all I'm saying.

Or perhaps WotC/Larian and some long time fans simply disagree what BG3 could and should look like. How game makers perceive an IP and how players perceive it might be fundamentally different.

EDIT. Most of us are here because we are fans of BG1/2. And yet we can't agree on what were important parts of BGs and what changes are acceptable/desirable. Larian's approach might not be made according to my and your vision of BG3, but it doesn't mean that they are not making BG3. They pitched BG3 and they were granted the IP. Sven somewhere did say that if he didn't intend to make BG3 he wouldn't call it BG3.

We might argue regarding what BG3 should be, but that doesn't mean that Larian can't do the same. And as they were granted the right to do it, their take on what BG is has more sway then ours.

I personnaly find it a little bit disrespectfull to those that loved and waited this game for years.
There's absolutely nothing that looks like Baldur's Gate actually except minor, insignificant things...

They could change many little things so the experience looks less like a Larian Game but more like a Baldur's Gate game.
UI, visual effects, story telling, number of companions, exploration,... These are only few exemple that could be reworked and meet lots of everyone's expectations.
,
I hope that's why the name was chosen because the name is everything for many people interrested in Baldur's Gate 3.

Both of these can be true (and I believe they are).

As to the main topic, though (aren't there numerous old threads on the same subject?), I am fine with four.

I´ve see many definitions of the feels that the previous games bg2 games have. For many it the game had a dark tone, for many it was a fun game with jokes about the three stooges and space miniature hamsters and gnomes that talk too much, an incredible D&D game, a compelling story, a great tactical game, etc etc.

Maybe for the devs of Larian the spirit of the BG games are a party-based game with developed companions and based in the current D&D installment of the tabletop; for other people it´s a game about a baalspawn played in real time with a party of six ; maybe for other is a D&D 2ed game,...
Everybody could have their vision, they´re like noses. Everybody has one (besides Voldemort)

But the ones that ultimately could make his vision of a new game come true is Larian. They said they will listen to the feedback but we must be aware that they´re going to make his own game in the end, and it´s going to be a BG3. His BG3.

Party base with develloped companions in the curent D&D installement of the tabletop is probably ok to everyone I guess...

What you describe is only a vision one can have for its game... Not the feelings players will experience.
A party base game with 3 companions out of 5 possibilities (+ horrible creature, owlbear cub or spiders) seems a little bit contradictoire to me, especially when one is a vampire, one is named Shadowheart and one is a Gythianki.

I guess if many more were planned they would have say it.

There will be more, the 5 we've seen are just what early access is launching with.

Larian's silence on additional companions is indeed worrisome. Everyone keeps saying there will surely be more, but I'm not sure. And since the vampire spawn and Sharite should be automatic no's for a good-aligned party, party composition is absolutely set for a good-aligned party with no possibility for any choice.