Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - General Losing companions after act1 is a deal breaker!

First, I would say that I hope I don't come across as angry. After all, we're arguing about video games of all things. But there were a lot of questions I had earlier in the thread that remain unanswered.

To address one argument - that people should play through multiple times - I feel that this argument is dismissive and unrealistic. Many players, myself included, tend to get a little burnt out after one playthrough and don't feel like picking up a game immediately afterwards. Expecting players to play through your game multiple times so they can have the experience they wish is unfair and unrealistic. It places an unrealistic expectation on the player, and frankly totally misses and sidesteps the major points that many of us are making. I do understand that a really large game that has so many choices will inevitably lead to people missing content, and I'm ok and supportive of that sort of thing. I simply don't understand why that should apply to character and party choice, when having party choice and conflict was such an essential part of the original games. To sum up: I'm not looking for the perfect playthrough. I'm looking for a satisfying one.

Another argument I would make is that limiting character choice after a single act totally misinterprets and changes the way characters have always worked in the BG series. In those games you could lose your important, essential characters late in the game, forcing you to either make due or change your party. This, to me, goes to the heart of what a previous poster said - I totally agree that forcing a player to make choices is essential and a good thing for a game and an experience. It makes everything heavier and more meaningful. But currently what we see is that the major character/party decision is made potentially only once: at the end of act 1. In the original games these heavy choices were made *frequently* with every dialog and moral decision that you would make. These were hard decisions, and they happened a lot.

I've mentioned in a different thread that I sometimes enjoy playing evil characters. In the BG games, my choices were sometimes strongly influenced by who was in my party. By choosing to do the evil thing, I sometimes ran the risk of pissing off Minsc, for example. And if this happened late in the game then I was doubly careful and aware of where we stood together in a group. So how did I make these decisions? In short, I roleplayed. I used "head canon" with my character and justified it in character realistically, thereby giving greater depth to the character I was playing instead of playing a cartoonish villian who did whatever he wanted, consequences be damned. The consequences were very real from a player's perspective. I could, of course, replace Minsc if necessary. The game allowed for that by letting Minsc walk away if needed and by giving me extra choices late in game. They might not have been my first choice but.. is that not the nature of in-game decision making? The way I understand things, I can be an evil dick in the later acts and my good friends will simply stick around. And if they won't - will I be allowed to replace them? Based on what little we've heard I would guess no. Currently, this is unknown and I am totally open to being corrected on my initial suspicions.

Ultimately, what Larian is implying is that players really must make one decision, or a culmination of smaller decisions, that pays off at the end of act 1. And that's it. There's nothing else, no further decisions to be made about party makeup later in the game, and absolutely no serious character v character conflicts that occur after the 1st act (don't forget how characters could clash in the original games). To me, this is not a choice. This is railroading. And it certainly isn't BG.

One thing I will add that is in agreement with what has been said previously. I do think that smaller parties with less potential mixing of personalities tends to lead to greater in-depth character interactions. Planescape was a great example of this, for instance.

First, I would say that I hope I don't come across as angry. After all, we're arguing about video games of all things. But there were a lot of questions I had earlier in the thread that remain unanswered.

To address one argument - that people should play through multiple times - I feel that this argument is dismissive and unrealistic. Many players, myself included, tend to get a little burnt out after one playthrough and don't feel like picking up a game immediately afterwards. Expecting players to play through your game multiple times so they can have the experience they wish is unfair and unrealistic. It places an unrealistic expectation on the player, and frankly totally misses and sidesteps the major points that many of us are making. I do understand that a really large game that has so many choices will inevitably lead to people missing content, and I'm ok and supportive of that sort of thing. I simply don't understand why that should apply to character and party choice, when having party choice and conflict was such an essential part of the original games. To sum up: I'm not looking for the perfect playthrough. I'm looking for a satisfying one.

Another argument I would make is that limiting character choice after a single act totally misinterprets and changes the way characters have always worked in the BG series. In those games you could lose your important, essential characters late in the game, forcing you to either make due or change your party. This, to me, goes to the heart of what a previous poster said - I totally agree that forcing a player to make choices is essential and a good thing for a game and an experience. It makes everything heavier and more meaningful. But currently what we see is that the major character/party decision is made potentially only once: at the end of act 1. In the original games these heavy choices were made *frequently* with every dialog and moral decision that you would make. These were hard decisions, and they happened a lot.

I've mentioned in a different thread that I sometimes enjoy playing evil characters. In the BG games, my choices were sometimes strongly influenced by who was in my party. By choosing to do the evil thing, I sometimes ran the risk of pissing off Minsc, for example. And if this happened late in the game then I was doubly careful and aware of where we stood together in a group. So how did I make these decisions? In short, I roleplayed. I used "head canon" with my character and justified it in character realistically, thereby giving greater depth to the character I was playing instead of playing a cartoonish villian who did whatever he wanted, consequences be damned. The consequences were very real from a player's perspective. I could, of course, replace Minsc if necessary. The game allowed for that by letting Minsc walk away if needed and by giving me extra choices late in game. They might not have been my first choice but.. is that not the nature of in-game decision making? The way I understand things, I can be an evil dick in the later acts and my good friends will simply stick around. And if they won't - will I be allowed to replace them? Based on what little we've heard I would guess no. Currently, this is unknown and I am totally open to being corrected on my initial suspicions.

Ultimately, what Larian is implying is that players really must make one decision, or a culmination of smaller decisions, that pays off at the end of act 1. And that's it. There's nothing else, no further decisions to be made about party makeup later in the game, and absolutely no serious character v character conflicts that occur after the 1st act (don't forget how characters could clash in the original games). To me, this is not a choice. This is railroading. And it certainly isn't BG.

One thing I will add that is in agreement with what has been said previously. I do think that smaller parties with less potential mixing of personalities tends to lead to greater in-depth character interactions. Planescape was a great example of this, for instance.

Well, there are only five companions and you could be one of them ( If you are an Origin character) So you can save three or four and only one or two are left behind in the end.

Personal tastes aside, that is the same already done in many games, the two already mentioned, the first POE where Calisca dies in the prelude, the two Grey warden recruit companions that die in DaO and daO: Awakening, Thrask the soldier that cannot escape the Endar Spire in Kotor with you, etc etc etc.

[quote=_Vic_]

In the full release there will be 9+ companions. So we would have to leave behind most of them, not just one or two.

Was it said somewhere that there would be at least 9 companions? I’ve only heard that more will be added, and I think that there will be at least 9, but I just wanted to know if that number came from a source.

In the full release there will be 9+ companions. So we would have to leave behind most of them, not just one or two.



I'm sorry, but you can't compare the two Grey Warden recruits to BG3 Origin companions. The wardens are forced upon you, will always die, are only there for a single mission, and you can't meaningfully interact with them. *Most importantly, the death of these recruits does not limit the other companions you can collect throughout the game.

Yes, and you are also assuming that you will have all the companions in Ch1, not the only 5 we already have.

Yeaaah... that´s what I said that In those games you lose them for good, in BG3 it seems you can recruit your lost companions in another playthroughs even if they are left behind, they will be ful-fledged companions, something I find appealing. That´s in, you know, the part of my post you did not quoted.
I am assuming you are going to lose some companions because they told us so. I´m glad you can recruit them when you replay the game.

I wasnt´comparing BG3 companions with the companions that you lose in the prelude in some games. I was saying that if you have to lose party members in BG3, I am glad that you do it (possibly) in a way that you can choose who lives and dies and that allows you to recruit the companions that you left behind when you replay the game.
Kinda the same it happens in Mass effect with Kayden and Ashley, like I told you in the part of my post you do not quoted (again) XDD

My guess is that Act 1 is getting the tadpole removed. It's going to be a down to the wire event that you barely survive, which means those not in your party will not live because they were not there to get the cure.
After that, the story will be all about stopping the Mindflayers.

It's just a guess, but that would make the most sense, to me.

Kill all your companions, then you don't need to worry about companions.

I'm assuming that we have probably seen all or at least most of the Origin Characters. These characters have more lines of dialogue than anyone else almost definitely, and require the most work toward developing in general. I'm assuming that later in the game, possibly after the end of Chapter 1, we will be introduced to more potential companions who are also heavily developed, albeit to a lesser degree than the Origin Characters (who, to remind you, are also player characters).

This statement is confusing. You don't necessarily want a party size to be limited and you don't want to make a hard call about who's going to continue on that adventure with you, but you recognize the value of a more intimate group? I can't tell from this comment if you're just willing to deal with whatever they decide to do, or if a smaller party size justified by an intense narrative shift is a dealbreaker for you.