I’ve been thinking a lot about what makes for good companions. Obviously “good” is subjective, so I’m thinking more in terms of what makes them really stick in my memory beyond a gimmick. I’ve discussed it with some friends, and I think Larian makes some great strides in some respects, while falling completely short in others. The presentation of Baldur’s Gate 3 feels much more akin to something like Dragon Age: Origins, and I’m hoping that the companions can feel just as much a part of the story as they do in that game, as DA:O is, to me, the gold standard when it comes to CRPG party members feeling like fully integrated parts of the story. Like them or hate them, they feel very much woven into the experience in a way that few other CRPGs I’ve played can match. Unfortunately, in my (admittedly quite limited, as the game does not run well on my system at all) time with Baldur’s Gate 3, I worry it will not maximise on this potential. The following are some things I’ve reflected on which, for me, go a long way in making companions memorable.
1) To start on a positive note, I love the fact that Larian has quest-lines for companions which stretch across the entire game. One of my biggest gripes with The Outer Worlds was how pathetic the companion quests were. Talk to the person on the ship, do a quick little side-quest, and then that’s it. With the exception of Father Maxi and Parvati, these quests felt insubstantial even by the standards of many other side quests in the game. Having these quest chains, rather than a singular quest, is an awesome way to feel like the characters are evolving with the story!
2) On the flip side, in Divinity OS2, it feels like characters do not exist outside of their quests. No matter what choices you make in the main plot or in the world, they do not react. It seems odd that I can genocide an entire city, and everyone goes along with it no problem. It seems odd that I can make sweeping choices in both main and side-quests, and your companions have no reaction at all. On the rare instances that they do react, it’s mostly just a round-robin of stating their opinions before returning to silence.
I believe this is one area where Dragon Age: Origins shines. Which companions you take with you will impact how certain conversations play out. Some characters will refuse to join your party if you have the wrong person in there. Others offer you bonuses. Sometimes party members will leave depending on the choices you make. It makes the companions feel like people, with their own agendas, ideals, and lives. In Divinity many of the companions have interesting personalities, but it never feels like they get to flex those personalities, because they exist mostly to follow the PC around. (This is not exclusively a Divinity problem, fwiw).
3) To get back to a positive, I actually enjoy the way BG3 presents its companions. I’m aware that I’m playing a version where they adjusted most of the earlier interactions, and it’s a fairly contentious situation, but I think far too often companions come along solely because ‘you are the PC, therefor we must submit to you’. Having characters grumble about being there, or needing convincing, and not simply bowing to your every whim because you’re the PC… well, I actually enjoy that quite a bit! It adds to that sense of them being people!
4) On a negative note, companions in Larian games rarely seem to acknowledge each other’s existence. In my Divinity OS2, everybody talks to the PC, but never to one-another. Lohse is possessed by a demon: a fact which I would assume somebody would have opinions on. The Red Prince is being hunted by assassins, and Ifan is an assassin, so there’s definitely room for conversation there. Likewise, if something in a quest were to arise conflicting opinions, this never matters.
A fun party has conflict amongst itself. Watching how characters react to conflict is what makes for a good story. The story among the group can be just as engaging as the story of each individual! Making these people with different goals and ideologies come together (or, if they just can’t cope, split apart) makes the party feel alive. With Dragon Age and Mass Effect, I can’t stress enough how much it’s not just the interjections into dialogue, but also the banter as you run around which makes the party feel like a living organism.
5) Back to the good! BG3 has production values, and that’s great because characters can emote! A lot of human communication is non-verbal, so getting the chance to tap into this really helps lend a dimension to the characters that just cannot be captured through a text box. To be honest I find the grey text of Pillars of Eternity or the narrator of Divinity rather obnoxious. I understand they are working on a budget, but these are things which should be animated! And lo, now they are! Awesome!
6) Last negative, but this one is more wishful thinking. To go along with ‘interjecting into main plot’, I actually enjoy it when quests can change considerably based on who is with you. I’m aware it’s a lot of work, but I think it really delves to the heart of one of those things which makes CRPGs special in my opinion. It feels like an adventure with lots of variables, and those variables make the world feel alive rather than just a construct within a video game. Also it makes for some great replayability!
And with that I will conclude these thoughts. Honestly I wish I could have simply sent them to Larian directly, but their thread directs feedback to the forums, so here it is for all to see! I do welcome any feedback, and to anyone who put up with reading this wall of text: cheers!
