Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - Mega-threads and Guides Party Size Discussion

+1

Conversations don't have to be a competition

Ain’t gonna happen - the cost to implement this with the production value the game has.....
4 is perfect.

It's ain't gonna happen, but there isn't additional cost to having 6 unit party opposed to 4 (especially as people don't seem to be asking for 6 player coop). It would take different UI, if current doesn't support it, but it is not inherently more expensive to have 6 party RPG then 4.

It'll take manhours for rebalancing and other things. So there is a very real cost to it. And we know game devs get paid crap like everyone else, but they still get paid.

Fair enough… though hopefully there is still a lot of balancing to be dane.

Weren't you also a part of when we just had this exact same argument for the 300th time barely a couple days ago in the official mega-thread?

I'll go with the quick rundown of the keypoints:

- difficulty adjustments would be welcomed but not required, so using the work necessary there as excuse sounds specious. Many of us already stated that if that was the price to pay we'd be perfectly fine getting the support for an extended party at expenses of the overall challenge. It would be our problem. Not someone else's.
- A lot of "rebalancing" could be for the most part automated with various expedient already broadly used. Exp distribution, dynamic addition of extra enemies if needed, maybe even a very narrow range of dynamic scaling for some key NPCs.
- It should be Larian's concern how much they are willing to spend on what. The concern trolling about the "poor devs and all the work they'd need to do" comes off as a bit disingenuous...
- ...Especially given that they have already a long tradition of including MULTIPLE difficulty settings in their games to begin with. So it's not clear why the "story mode" or "Uber masochist" option would be totally fine to work with, but the simple request from some users to allow for an OPTIONAL six-men mode and *eventually* adjust a couple of things around it would be some crime against human dignity and the devs' working conditions.

Yeah me thinks the anti-bigger party posters are deliberately ignoring these points and continuing to throw out the debunked claim of additional work for rebalancing because they know they don't have any rational arguments to present against those of us wanting a bigger party.

I am in favor of a bigger party... but it's not a costless change. There's no such thing.

Then please enlighten me. I keep asking for this because I honestly would like to know what I may be missing. But it seems like you two are all sizzle but no steak.

I am really trying to give you guys the benefit of the doubt that you have a solid answer but so far a lot of Ad Hominin and equivocation. Truthfully I suspect this is a lot of dumb sentimentality that is pointlessly subjective like "the Nashkel mines guy".

"If..it..doesn't..have...the...Nashkel...mines (sob)...then it's not...Baldur's gate!" (Faints Dramatically)

That still makes me laugh. Heh. What a contractor-grade tool.

The party size of 6, the ton of companions/personnalities and the freedom you have to create your team are main components of BG1/2 even if you don't care and if this statement makes you derailed a thread for the sake of it

The Party size mega-thread is here- https://forums.larian.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=672266&page=61

Perfectly not derailed.

So just to be clear on your inane statement - Any game that has a Party size of 6, a "ton" of companions, and the freedom to create your team - make something a Baldur's Gate game then?

So Wasteland 3 is a Baldur's Gate game by your 'not-arbitrary at all distinction?'

You know I WANTED so badly to give you guys the benefit of the doubt but I now know its exactly like I said, this is dumb sentimentality at work. I understand now why you kept prevaricating and didn't want to answer.

I've mentioned before why sentimentality is dangerous. I would say it's more insidious, because people don't ever want to analyze it, nor are they educated on why its harmful. It's one of those things that sits on the periphery of understanding so our eyes glaze over it but I assure you its behind a lot of really - really - ugly behavior.

In the gamer world it leads to a LOT of very abusive gatekeeping. Instead of allowing things to stand on their own people will have these emotional reactions to the idea of a thing being made which they feel doesn't respect some arbitrary idea of what used to be. They are not rational or level-headed about expressing dissatisfaction either. Very melodramatic stuff.

Anyway, up to you. Confront your sentimentality, or live the life of a sentimentalist (that's bad). Good luck.

You said you "honestly want to know", but you don't give the impression that you're genuinely interested in someone's opinion, willing to acknowledge that their opinion is also valid. The impression you're giving is that you're challenging others' opinions with full intention of shooting them down with your "logical" argument, while acting condescending to them, even as if there's something wrong with them (judging by your constant claiming that sentimentality is "dumb" and will ruin our lives). Yeah, most of us don't want to deal with that kind of attitude, especially when we don't get paid for doing it.

Your replies to me - demanding me to defend a simple statement and explain myself to you, then claiming that I'm "full of it" and "having no argument" when I simply said I didn't wish to argue - they proved to me exactly that this is the kind of negativity I'd rather not waste my time dealing with, when it's much easier for me to just not deal with it. A proper, serious debate is something I value and wouldn't just give it to anyone who approaches me with arrogance and a bad attitude. In other words, you haven't shown me that you're worth that kind of effort. We should all strive for positivity and constructiveness while ignoring and putting aside negativity, right? Life is too short and all that.

In the end, you get what you give. If that's the way you ask people to talk to you, to explain themselves to you, then that's what you get.

TL;DR: go to any twitch channel and you know what they almost always say in their rules? Be nice.

It is not easy to define "What makes Baldur's Gate, Baldur's Gate". I am sure it is possible, but I don't think fans of the series should be required to write a doctoral paper analysing titles they like, in order to be allowed to not like what the "sequel" is doing. Because here is the insidious thing:

Baldur's Gate3 is called Baldur's Gate3 because someone wants to benefit of the good will and "prestige" of the IP. Turning around and dismissing fans of the IP because the sequel doesn't live up to expectation set up by BG1&2 IS a crappy thing to do. If you make Lord of the Rings related project, people will pay attention because it is Lord of the Rings related project. You can't then turn around and complain that people compare you to Lord of the Rings.

Is it a worthwhile thing to complain at this point? To me BG3 not being a Baldur's Gate was clear from the moment it was announced that it is being made by Larian, and for everyone else it should be clear since first gameplay videos were shared. One might dislike direction the series is being taken, but complaining at this point about it seems like wasting time. StarWars is dead. Star Trek is dead. Baldur's Gate is dead. It won't stop fans from complaining, though.

And of course, what is and what isn't a worthwhile sequel will vary from person to person. Personally, I think the very appeal of the games is too different. I liked Bioware games. I am somewhat liking Baldur's Gate3 - but for very different reasons. Not every WW2 shooter is the same thing. Not every gangster film is the same thing. Thief reboot on top of being a bad game, was a bad Thief game, because it wasn't an immersive sim - there are similarities that can be made, but overall, the Thief reboot doesn't even attempt to recreate the appeal of the IP it was using.

BG3 might be an RPG, and might be based on DnD, but that doesn't necessarly make for a good Baldur's Gate game. The best explenantion I can give, without having to analyze the details is: Infinity Engine games had three series - Baldur's Gate1&2, Icewind Dale1&2 and Planescape Torment. They run on the same engine, most of them were based on same ruleset, I am pretty sure they shared assets. They are not the same game series - they have different focuses and different appeals, even though there are a lot of similarities. Some people like all of them, some people like some series more then others, some only like one or two. Modern example: Disco Elysium, Pillars of Eternity, Pathfinder: Kingmaker, Divinity: Original Sin2 are top down RPGs but are fundamentally different games - in appeal, in design, in tone, in priorities, in gameplay they allow for. And while I adored Disco Elysium and Pillars of Eternity, if PoE3 will come into existance, and will play like Disco Elysium - I won't be very happy about it, even if game, as such, is pretty good.

Another example: Let's use Thief example again. I really like Dishonored 1&2. It is immersive sim, which I always like, and it is clearly inspired by Thief games, which are some of my fav games of all time. It would, however, be a lousy Thief sequel, if it were sold as such. You use IP, you create expectations, often unreasonable ones, if it is a legendary series.

BG3 might be made for Larian fans. Might be made for DnD 5e fans (though that's doubful considering how many changes there are) or people who want DnD-like coop experience in digital form. I am confident in saying that it is not made for Baldur's Gate fans. I am confident in claiming that one can adore Baldur's Gate1&2 and all it's legacy, and not care one bit for Baldur's Gate3. There will be overlap and people who like both original Baldur's Gates and Larian's take on it (I for one liked all Infinity Engine series, I liked Bioware games, I liked Obsidian games - in general I consider my taste to be fairly wide, and there is a chance that I might like BG3 quite a bit, if it keeps improving) but that doesn't mean that people disliking BG3 are dillusional, or unreasonable. Unrealistic, perhaps, if they think they can change fundamentals of BG3 at this point.

Yep still want this! after 1000+ posts nothing changed. Looks like we will have to settle for temporary companions like Hasin at least that's something and just proves that 5 - 6 party size would work great...

I can't stress this enough, party size of 5 - 6 would be so cool!!! I'm willing to pay extra for it. Full DC price for 6 man party with difficulty rebalance!@?!! Sure here take my money!!

You are 100% entitled to your feelings, sensitivities and so forth. You are actually not required to defend them unless you make a statement, on a public forum, that you present as some sort of fact. At that point people are allowed to challenge you, respectfully.

Everything you wrote below this though proves my point 100%. This is just a way you feel. Its not objective. Its not based on reason or thought. It has its roots in the meat of the animal mind and the associated biases and feelings that make up your operating system and your formative experiences. Its more a reaction formation than a considered opinion.

Also questioning and asking you to defend a point of view is the opposite of dismissal. Its direct engagement. You may not like it, you may not like being challenged, you may not like feeling like you are backed into a corner you can't reasonably defend, and you may be one of those people that can't back down in such a situation. That's fine, then don't make statements on public forums. Write it in your blog, diary or a word document on your computer. Imagine showing up to a public debate and saying that when you get pressed on a statement you made...publicly. I wouldn't be able to stop laughing at that.

And worst of all, its the utter uselessness of such statements and attitudes. A forum designed to parse community feedback - of which - "what makes a Baldur's gate game a Baldur's gate game?" is a legitimate question. You not being able to articulate it just--ugh. I can't even.

Alright, so what if someone said Baldur's gate had to:

1. have the name of Baldur's Gate in the title
2. be set in the same universe as the previous games and involve a story that in some way either involves the city of Baldur's Gate or deal with some story connected (BGII was connected to the first obviously)
3. party of 6
4. real time with pause being an option

is that such a bad thing for people to want? Would that not be okay? Are there hundreds of games that fill those 4 points? Are people not allowed to get frustrated if Call of Duty suddenly became a 20 vs 20 conquest style of game?

Somethat right, and somewhat condecending indiocism. Of course my liking of BG1&2 is subjective. And of course, when being offered BG3 I expect for it to tickle me in somewhat similar way. Baldur's Gate3 is in many many many many many aspects objectively different then BG1&2. There are bunch of individual changes people are pointing to ever since BG3 was revealed, and if you still don't grasp the different then pick up BG1&2 and give it ago. If you hurry it's about £5 for both on GOG at the moment. You might not like it, but at least will give you an idea of how they are different.

If you give me tiramisu there are things I expect from it. If turns out your tiramisiu is a brownie, because it is what you make, and you just called with tiramisiu because marketing? And sure both have cocoa, and it might be a very nice brownie, and I generally don't mind brownie, and if you never had or liked tiramisu, it might not bother you, but it somewhat bothers me.

Gaming should stop sticking to IPs. Sequels are only of value, if there is room to improve. You did one game, you want to do it again, but better - that's a sequel. If you want to do "spiritual successor" or use one or two ideas and do you own thing, just create your own IP. All you do is piss people off, who liked it as it was, and want more of the same, updated with newer technology.

EDIT: And returning to the subject. 4 vs 6 party is a different dynamic. And in a wide contect games that focus on innerparty interactions and synergy have 5-6 men parties, while RPGs that don't tend to stick to 3-4. It doesn't bother me a whole lot, but combined with unification of classes and homebrew rules made by Larian, and overal limitation of spells via concentration the difference is quite stark. Different goals, different interactions, different gameplay.

First, you seem to be confused that I am arguing against a 6 party system. I am not. I'd be fine with either. This was about a statement made that Bg3 is "nothing Baldur's Gate" which I asked for the person who said it to qualify. They failed to do so and have only contributed weird emotional outbursts since then. My conclusion is that they were just being hyperbolic and a bit lazy.

I played BG1 and 2 when it came out. I played it again recently. You are just full of assumptions.

If I wanted to know what defined Tiramisu I would ask a professional chef. That Chef would talk about how the dessert hit the tongue, what flavors could be identified, the liquor, the sweetness, the cream and how they all came together as an experience. It wouldn't be as subjective as you think. A professional, or even a well-educated person who took the time would be able to articulate it. That somebody took a brownie and made it taste like good Tiramisu would be impressive. You wouldn't necessarily stop at seeing the brownie and say...well its not Tiramisu.

And if it didn't work the Chef would tell you why. In detail.


Anyway, enjoy your Tiramisu flavored brownie.

I wish I could. I put myself on a post holiday diet