Originally Posted by Saito Hikari
The major thing that makes me favor the Pathfinder companions more is that they are simple at first glance, but the more you travel with them and look at them more closely, it's apparent that they have layers of depth beneath it all that you can analyze by their behavior throughout the game, either witnessed or implied. They are also framed as characters that are a part of the world they are traveling in, instead of characters with stories that are so out there that the rest of the world is seemingly a blur in comparison, if that makes any sense.

I found Pathfinder and their companions rather dull. Both Amiri and Valerie, for instance, are fundamentally stunning and brave (TM) feminist tropes subverting the oppressive norms of the patriarchy. The blatant forced ideology was unimmersive and made me less receptive for their actual personality. The Pathfinder companions generally felt like stereotypical caricatures, whereas Baldur's Gate 3's companions are diametrical opposites; edgelords tryharding to be unique all at once, all too soon. The individual uniqueness may feel a bit lost in a forest of uniqueness, and I suspect the Origin-system is partly to blame.

The BG3 companion roster would likely be better balanced with the inclusion of companions that are more straightforward - without making them boring. But the companions that we know are yet to be implemented; a "devil holy warrior" and a "howling bard", sounds like more of the same I must admit. Overly complex super special edgelords, that leaves me believe Larian isn't really considering how well the companions can contrast - yet still harmonize.

Last edited by Seraphael; 02/08/21 10:09 AM.