Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - Suggestions & Feedback Really disliking the plan for companion locks

OK, now I've finshed the EA - so they whole hook for this theory is that they said you have to commit and this is the interpretation that people made based on that quote? There is no actual proof that you have the party being cut or have I missed something?

Individual companions leaving on account of your actions is also nothing new in the genre. Even in the first Baldur's Gate you had it. It was much more basic than later games and was simply dependent on your reputation, but since than many RPGs had some form of mechanic like it. Larian the best approach would be to combine the approval system with something more scripted. Which means that if your approval rate with a certain companion reach a certain negative value, they will warn you they don't like the way you do things, and if it drops further they will leave.

Aside from that, you can make certain meaningful decisions in the game affect your companions. Example from DAO: if you defile the ashes of Andraste in her sample and you have Wynn and/or Leliana in your party, they will fight you to death.

All of the above methods for dealing with companions leaving the party are valid in my opinion, provided you have enough companions in the game to account for different playstyles. What is not valid is arbitrarily deciding to get rid of all your potential party members simply because they are not in your party at a certain moment. This is what I call a cheap game mechanic that its only reason to exist is to artificially increase the game replay value.

Correction: Leleiana and Wynne can possibly fight you to the death. It is entirely possible that that doesn't happen. I know, I've done it.

What is "artificially increasing replay value"? There's nothing artificial about that method. If you want to see how absent companion stories play out after Chapter 1, you're either going to reload a base save, and start over with that character, with different companions, or, roll a new character, and both are the definition of replay value. Reasons to replay a game:

1. New class/race/gender choice.
2. Different path through the story.
3. Different companion choices, including romance, if available. Note, this would include different companions if they do lock the party to "who's with you when x happens".

None of that is artificial.

I'm not a fan of a potential character lock, and it's not fearmongering, it's what Larian has hinted at, so let's have a discussion about it.

I don't really see any upsides in having a character lock after Act 1, neither story- nor gameplay-wise. You just lock yourself out of potentially interesting content and learning more about a party member you maybe initially didn't even like. You could bring the argument that you could just start another playthrough and pick someone else but that wouldn't really be a compelling argument why the character lock is justified to begin with.

I'm not a fan of a potential character lock, and it's not fearmongering, it's what Larian has hinted at, so let's have a discussion about it.

I don't really see any upsides in having a character lock after Act 1, neither story- nor gameplay-wise..

Right forgot about the hardening thing. You right. I don't see how it's relevent but you get the poitnts if it's so important for you.

Artificially increasing replay value - forcing the player to make choices that serve no purpose other than prolonging the game's shelf life. Everything you mentioned is fine. But if the game suddenly decide to arbitrarily block you from some content without providing alternative content, it's artificially increasing replay value. I'm sorry I keep returning to it, but right now it's our only point of reference - if you tell me to choose 3 out of 6 companions and then kill the rest for no good reason, you practically forcing me to replay the game even though you didn't have to. You put a roadblock to a lot of game content and offer nothing in return. I played dos2 several times, but most interesting was the playthrough with increased party size mod. The reason why it was so interesting is that not only it didn't hurt the story, it actually made the story better, and more sensible and cohesive. Highly recommended

Oh did they say that? Care to share a link because I dont believe the narrative beeing spun right now without some proof.

Oh did they say that? Care to share a link because I dont believe the narrative beeing spun right now without some proof.

Is your party permanent or can you change members out throughout the adventure?
Recruited companions will be at camp when not in the adventuring party, and can be swapped in and out at camp. After the first act however you are going to have to commit, also just like in real life.

From FAQ:

Is your party permanent or can you change members out throughout the adventure?
Recruited companions will be at camp when not in the adventuring party, and can be swapped in and out at camp. After the first act however you are going to have to commit, also just like in real life.

I can hardly interpret that differently than putting party lock in place.

I also share the opinion od many here, that commiting to 3 NPCs out of at least 8 in a let's say 100 hours long campaign is too much to ask for.

Since a lot of old fans Will probably want to reserve a spot for Minsc, that means you can take 2 of current NPCs out of Act1 - now choose which 2 are you taking?