The problem is that dynamic gets complicated in a video game. Firstly the typical video game standard is to have multiple characters you can swap in and out of a party at a time. Secondly and more importantly, the reason that that is the standard is because in a real life game the DM is able to account for party composition when it comes to what challenges are presented to the party and a video game can't do that. So arguing "that's just the way it works" fails to acconut for the strengths and limitations of each medium. When you have a choice between multiple companions with multiple classes and abilities, the ability to assemble a party that can't successfully deal with all the slings and arrows of the game world comes into play. So multiple party members that can be swapped in and out are presented to offset that.
That might be the “standard”, but it doesn’t necessarily have to be like that. It depends how the game is designed. Maybe you don’t actually need a rouge or a mage? Maybe the game is flexible enough to play with more varied party compositions?
Furthermore, in a real life game the other party members are also real people, most likely your friends, and interacting with three or four real friends will always outweigh interacting with three or four fictional characters, no matter how well written those characters are. So having more party members in a game to bounce off of makes sense in that aspect.
For people who prefer to play with friends, real people will always trump NPCs. I’m not sure how swapping out party members is supposed to help with that? Of course in BG3 your party members can also be real people, which is almost certainly why it’s being done this way. I find it funny how no one seems to acknowledge that in this thread.
So decrying people's issues with this choice because it's more like tabletop D&D is kind of missing a lot of the reasons this choice isn't standard in RPGs of this kind in the first place.
And yet maybe some of those reasons are really applicable to this game?
