...
My concern is that it will get very stale dealing with the same party for another 60-80 hours, versus being able to keep things fresh with adding and removing party members at will.
I agree with this sentiment. I am one of those people that rarely commits to a party, I like to mix things up every once in a while.
As for the 'realism' aspect: in my mind, it is fine if companions decide to hang out in camp every once in a while (to "rest" or whatever), while my PC heads out with a smaller group to do stuff. The companions back in camp still know what is going on and are up to date with the happenings ingame, it's not like they are ever out of the loop. They are just as much a part of it as the currently active companions in my group, and react to ingame events accordingly when you speak to them back at camp.
I am all for player choice when it comes to companions, as in: give the player the option to boot / kill / otherwise dismiss companions that are unwelcome, either before or after they have been recruited. That alone makes for good replay value, because according to how you roleplay, you will always end up with a different set of companions anyway. If certain ingame events force the death / betrayal / [insert other reason for leaving] of single companions throughout the game, or even prevent their recruitment (due to your race/alignment etc), then so be it. I am actually all for it, because that should also be allowed to be part of a roleplay story, especially if it is tied in to decisions you make as a player.
But making half the companions inaccessible all at once at a certain point in the game just because it was decreed we shouldn't realistically be allowed access to them, seems a bit weak, and for me, personally, diminishes the experience (also because, if I want to know their stories, I will be forced to take them in a future playthrough). Like in DOS2, it would leave a bit of a sour taste and have me wondering why I even bothered with the now-gone companions in the first place.
