I wonder why they chose to limit the party to four members.
Lot of us do ...
There are some working theories, since Larian refuses to answer that.
One of them is my personal favourite, and its that 4 is maximum numbers of splits on single monitor that still can look good ... i know that lot of people have HUGE monitors theese days, but not exactly everyone.
Another one, widely accepted as true, is the fact that its bcs Larian started working on BG-3 by simply copy code from DoS and start alterning it, instead of creating something new ... and since there reportely was 4members party, it also is here.
(Cant confrim tho, i didnt play any Larian game before this one.)
And finaly, there are some people, quite rare to be honest, but i still have seen them quite often in this topic ... who believe it was decision based on party management, since in lot of Fantasy games you have 4 members party, so they see it as standard.
(Cant say i agree, but since game is playable i gues they kinda make point that 4 is "enough" ... i would still rather have optimal than minimal.)
As for the achievement condition only being for certain achievements, the problem is that having more party members would likely affect game balance (if the developers didn't try to balance that), so most if not all of the achievements would probably be easier to get.
Because of that, they would end up having to apply that and similar conditions to almost every, if not every, achievement.
If "party members" < 4
print: "Greetings player, this game was ballanced for 4 member party, but we totally respect your choice and know that you would probably download some mod, that will make probably your game unstable, or mess your save ... therefore we decided to allow it, so if you wish to continue, feel free to ... but be warned, this decision will affect battles, party management and social interaction, and not necesarily in the good way ...
AND BTW, we will also disable your Achievments ... have fun tho! :P"
That is solution i would concider both effective and easy to implement.
I like to see options in games when they're feasible because it usually means that more people can enjoy a game
And i want to see more people on this forum, who understand this. :3
Did i welcome you? Let me do that again ... welcome between us.
Fallout 3 at least had V.A.T.S. added to somewhat make up for the change, but the fans of the original games were still upset.
Dragon Age II is a game that a lot of the fans of Origins (and even those who weren't fans of Origins) were upset about.
Certainly ... my point is that in long therms, they are minority ... and therefore irellevant for companies.
Its ugly truth we dont like to hear, but that is how it is ...
As for sequels that improve the games without drastically changing them or making them worse, they're actually somewhat common, even though lately they've become far less common.
Mass Effect 2, Pillars of Eternity II, Fallout: New Vegas, The Witcher III, Diablo II, Super Metroid, etc.
From this list i played only New Vegas, wich is crown jewel between all Fallouts for me ... and i doubt it ever be replaced.
And i cant express how ashamed i am for forgeting on it when i was writing that coment. :-/
And Mass Effect 2 ...
But i dare to disagree with you here, since ME2 seem to be quite different to ME ... at least in my opinion.
Sure, both are 3rd person RPG shooters ... but that is where all similarity ends. :-/
Actualy i would even dare to say that change from Mass Effect to Mass Effect 2 was almost as drastic as from Dragon Age: Origins, to Dragon Age II. :-/
- skill trees were cut to most basic things
- crafting system for upgrading both weapons and armors was removed completely
- heating weapons was replaced for some odd kind of universal ammo, that can be used to any gun ... yet, if you waste your amo to one gun, you can easily switch to another that is for some reason fully loaded even tho all clips are universal and therefore fit to both. O_o
I could go on, but you get the point.
Others i never even seen.
As for having the same gameplay making a game a remaster rather than a sequel, having real-time with pause wouldn't make Baldur's Gate III a remaster instead of a sequel any more than having mostly the same gameplay makes Fallout: New Vegas a remaster instead of a sequel.
Nah, you missunderstand me ...
I was not talking about RTWP, but about *something* in general ... if *nothing* is changed, therefore game remains the same in every direction, then you have remaster ... if *something* is changed, then it can be sequel.
Ofcourse its also theoreticaly possible to create remaster, and yet change things ... but that is entirely different topic.
Just playing with the words, its not important.
Regardless of its possible origins, pizza as it is known is quite distinct from a sandwich as it is known, and while some like pizza, they might not like sandwiches, and likewise for those who like sandwiches.
If someone who likes and wants pizza orders a pizza but gets a sandwich that's being called a pizza, they will likely be disappointed, because they know that pizzas, as they like and know them, aren't sandwiches, and they wanted a pizza, not a sandwich.
They might still eat the "pizza" and even like it, but it still won't make it an actual pizza, and it will probably still be somewhat disappointing.
Agreed.
Again.
Luckily we have restaurant reviews online ... in this case even showcases, countless of streamers, commercials, interviews with developers, massive events (like E3, or curently going EGX) and lot and lot other ways to find out what kind of meal we will get, if we order in *this* imaginative restaurant.
So we can quite easily lower our expectations and therefore even disappointment.
As you said, it still doesn't prevent rolling "1"s.
Also, to me, it seems like the "1" side is weighted...
In that case, all i can suggest is Halfling.
That makes sense, but how am I supposed to play as an overpowered, gunslinging battle mage if it makes more sense?
Dunno ... multiclass?
