[...] As I've said before, the ideal scenario would be 12 high-content companions (origin or not) with at least BG2 level of "richness" and another 12 companions that have less content to them (between BG1 and BG2 level) for good variety.
This is too much to hope for, I wouldn't hold my breath. Party size and number of companions were among the very first issues I brought up long ago when this game was just announced, when I still thought/hoped it would follow more closely in the original game's footsteps. "We have few companions for you because they're sooo deeply developed" is a lazy excuse which is at best based on their opinion of what is considered "deeply developed", and at worst a complete lie. Devs are supposed to figure out the right balance that allows them to create well developed companions without each taking such a huge amount of time that they can't do more than 6.
Oh, I have no hope for this and am certainly not holding my breath. Just what I think would be best. And yeah, if "deeply developed" means "look, this character has sooo much drama, it's deep and well-written"... well, I'd rather take flavourful cardboard, thank you very much. From what I can tell, the current cast acts like BG3 is the beach episode of a teen drama. I don't think I'm going to like any of them.
Originally Posted by Saito Hikari
In the context of the story, Lich are locked to lawful neutral/lawful evil/neutral/neutral evil because the advisor that sends you on the path and the actions you take to remain on it are pretty unambiguously evil. You are given some wiggle room by being on one of the non-chaotic neutral alignments though.
Ah, I see. Thanks! The possibility of raising additional companions sounds very interesting too. Might go with a Lich on my first playthrough, though I usually go with goody-two-shoes on neutral first.
Originally Posted by Saito Hikari
She’s a scholar and scientist through and through, and prides herself on her intellect. To the point where from the point of view of the other characters, she has no place on the battlefield. Many of the game’s villains don’t really know what to make of her too. But she can take care of herself just fine and you can humor her research. Another quirk of hers is that she has very selective memory and often forgets irrelevant details, including things about herself. The irony is not lost on the player character, you are fully capable of calling her out (and everyone else for that matter).
Nenio's art didn't really capture me, but she seems like a great character. I love those "unique/different" ones.
Originally Posted by Seraphael
Originally Posted by Uncle Lester
Regarding companion count in BG3 - 8 companions in a Baldur's Gate game is quite ridiculous. As I've said before, the ideal scenario would be 12 high-content companions (origin or not) with at least BG2 level of "richness" and another 12 companions that have less content to them (between BG1 and BG2 level) for good variety. 12 because one per class, and it divides nicely in 3 so you can have even alignment split. Of course it's completely unrealistic, it'll probably end with those 8 origins and that's it. Unless you count generic mercenaries.
I'm usually of the opinion that quality>quantity, but BG3 took it to ridiculous levels by greatly reducing companion choice, in a series that's known for good companion variety. And I'm not too certain about the "quality" of current companions anyway.
Strongly disagree with this because for all practical purposes, greater width ALWAYS comes at the cost of lesser depth. If I want width, I'll play another Bethesda sandbox. The majority of players likely won't even complete one playthrough, let alone dedicate 100s of hours to extract every nuance, so I'd rather have additional content that can be enjoyed on my single playthrough (if I even make it that far). I really dislike the dogmatic "Noah's Ark"-tokenism where all classes, races and alignments ideally MUST be represented. Beyond allowing for a balanced team with preferably a single "backup" for every basic party role, having characters with opposing ethos and conflicting personalities makes for MUCH more interesting roleplaying opportunities than "mechanical designer parties".
Don't get me wrong; I don't want mechanical variety at the cost of writing. In that case I could just take mercenaries or a custom party. I want "archetype"/personality/character type variety, and it happens to go well together with mechanical variety. A mix of classes/races/backgrounds works better than "everyone is a human fighter noble". I very much agree the token-whatever thing is ridiculous, and I would not push to force one character into another class when it's detrimental to the story aspect just to fill the class quota. I'm also of the opinion that replay value is overrated and should not come at the expense of experience of a single playthrough (especially the first).
So my point is not to fill some quota or to increase replay value - it's that a good variety of companions is required to give players choice. If I have 6 companions to choose from, chances are that either I as a player will like none of them or it will be jarring for my character to hang out with those particular characters. No amount of "depth" (or crammed content of whatever quality) will matter if I can't have a party I actually like. Hence my opinion (as kanisatha's) that 12 "full" companions is a minimum. This is what WotR has now and from what I understand, they don't seem lacking in writing, content or reactivity. The additional 12 I mentioned is as a low-cost bonus to further expand on choice.
Another thing is what I mentioned already; it's supposed to be a Baldur's Gate game, so it should uphold one of the main features of the series. In a successor to Planescape: Torment, I would not push for many companions (though imo there still should be like two more than you can recruit to a full party).