Yeah its a little bizarre. Outside of combat or dialog, I don't really understand why the other characters in the party even need to occupy a physical space at all? Like if I can't control them directly as a unit, I'd rather they just behaved like ghosts, not actually touching the ground or interacting with anything in the environment until they are actually selected.
Visually they could still be ambling around for the sense of realism, but in a practical sense, couldn't the whole party just be considered to be moving within the space defined by the single selected PC? And then the rest of the gang just sort of materialize or dematerialize when the situation calls for it? You know, like combat starts, and the selected PC says something like "Rally to me!" and then the 3 other PCs just warp into position behind the currently selected PC?
I don't get the point of watching the 3 others characters tripping over each other in my peripheral vision during the simple exploration or non combat movement stuff.
If I can't move the whole group as a unit, or define their individual paths with waypoints or issue commands in sequence via some kind of pause feature, then there's no real reason to try and set up ambushes or attempt tactical positioning prior to combat. It might as well be a single PC doing everything at those times, and the rest of the party just kind of shows up behind the main selected PC when a combat or a dialog begins.
I don't know, I just hate everything about the non combat tethering dynamic. It reminds me of playing Contra and watching Player 2 just die in the water constantly while Player 1 tries to jump up to the next platform charging ahead lol. Like does anyone actually think 3 legged relay races are fun for more than 3 minutes? Cause I certainly don't. And that's what the chain feels like to me. Wrap it up in tinfoil and launch it at the sun! There has to be a better way.
The way its set up now, its like the game is trying to create the impression of controlling a full party (I guess because that's what BG was?) when in fact we are only ever in control of a single PC. That's just not Baldur's Gate as far as I'm concerned. It might still be D&D, and perhaps more like the Pen and Paper experience, but its not at all what I was expecting from this title given its lineage.
Not trying to be caustic here, I'd really rather the game succeeded, but its currently failing my basic shortlist test for the things that are essential to a proper successor to the Baldur's Gate/Icewind Dale IE series.
D&D ruleset Forgotten Realms game setting
Full Party control (eg godmode) A large party, with a large pool of characters to choose from (say 6 out of 18 or thereabouts)
Plenty of games have come out satisfying one or the other condition, but the reason why Neverwinter Nights was not a proper successor is because it failed on the full party control aspect, instead it went with AI henchmen. The reason Dragon Age was not a proper successor is because it failed to provide the D&D and the Forgotten Realms setting, and it also went with AI henchmen. To capture what made Baldur's Gate so cool, and itself a proper successor to the old Gold Box games, you really need to meet all those requirements I think. Otherwise the game just isn't really what it's purporting to be.
The main thrust of Baldur's Gate gameplay was controlling the whole group of characters, and not just the one dude up front. BG3 is necessarily limited by the choice to go fully turn based, but that's no different than the old gold box set up, so not a deal breaker. In those games "The Party" (at least during exploration) was abstracted and simplified into just a single player control scheme. I would much prefer they do the same here. I would like to roam around the map as a single PC, with my party basically hidden behind me, but they still show up whenever any combats or dialogs occur. Right now you can't really do this. Soloing or returning to a pocket camp to dismiss or recruit followers is NOT what I'm talking about. I mean the entire current party is always along for the ride, but they only "appear" during non combat exploration cosmetically. If the player clicks the current hourglass button to enter Turn Based Mode 6 sec intervals, then the whole party should appear around the currently selected PC (in the real, not just as cosmetic apparitions) so I can then issue separate movement commands for positioning.
There's no need for a chain at all. It's only purpose is to allow for exploration/movement convenience as a single character, when it might as well just make all the other characters disappear from view. That way player only has to focus on moving one thing around - the Party.
During exploration the currently selected character is the stand in for the entire crew. In Co Op, you could do the same, but where instead of the whole Party, now player 1 and player 2 each take control Half the Party. Characters not currently selected, just going hidden until a combat or a dialog occurs, or until the player actively summons them up by using some button. If Player 2 "chains" themselves to player 1, then they go ghost and their half of the team just disappears into Player 1's temporary control, at least until a combat or dialog or whatever. I mean wouldn't that just make more sense?
Or to put it yet another way, when I click "Toggle Group All" to chain the party together, what should happen is that all the other characters then disappear or become merely cosmetic ghosts. They don't run into traps or climb ladders, they don't initiate dialogs or launch encounters. They just disappear behind the selected PC to whom they have been chained, so that the Leader in effect becomes The Party.
You know with just a single marque/circlet representing the group. I can immediately anticipate the response, "but I want to position different characters in different ways so that I can set up ambushes!" Or "what if I want sneak into the house with just one guy, while everyone else stays outside?" or "won't this make it harder to meta all the combats in the game, by trying to pre-place my whole party based on what I know from my last save?" and really this approach wouldn't have to mess with any of that. It's just an exploration convenience. Entering Turn Based mode, you could still do everything as normal. The only thing it would really change is how the exploration and simple non combat movement aspect is handled.
Just so it's catchy, I will call this proposed scheme...
Marley's Chains:
The idea is that once a PC is "chained" they become a ghost for all intents and purposes. They're still there (enfolded into the PC to whom they are chained), and they could even still be visible for the cinematic appeal, but they don't actually interact with the game's environment. In exploration mode, outside of combat/conversation, being chained just means going ghost.
"Chain All" puts the entire party into such a ghost mode, and they are considered to be moving inside the selected PC's space. In their wake, as it were. While chained in such a fashion the entire party just is the MC. If that makes sense?
