If we're going to compare then we should do it fairly. The original BG games were made more than 20 years ago, and on budgets that--even adjusting for inflation--were a tiny fraction of BG3's budget. So it is eminently reasonable for me to have expectations of BG3 that greatly exceed what I got from BG2. Eight companion choices, some of whom may even be locked out after Act 1, is utterly piss-poor by any standard.
Not by any standard. Some modern RPG I played had this" issue" . Mass effet series come to mind here(there were 5 companions I think? maybe 6). Skyrim had 1 follower and it was a meme(not exactly the same type of games granted). Dragon age with a DLC had up to 15 apparently! But no idea how they turned out cause dragon age was rendered unplayable for me by the camera. I gave up fighting with it at some point i just uninstalled.
BG3 might suffer from Mass effect syndrome. Sometimes less is more I guess. But idk, I have to say I would prefer to have at least 15-ish companions with distinct characters +interactions even if it means ( for obvious reasons) more shallow personal quests.
Maybe we will all be proven wrong by Larian at the end though(Also keep in mind the max number is an assumption....we still don't actually know how many companions there will be).
More companions and more good - alligned characters is a sure thing though. How many and when? We will discover all of that and much more....In the next panel of Hell! Or ...the next one. Or the next one. Or on release.
