To divert the discussion somewhat and raise a question:
Is it a good or a bad thing that WotR restricts companions to different mythic paths? And not just one (like how in MotB you choose between the rainbow bear and the One-of-Many), but several? Given how dead-set on making the players be obsessive completionists they've been in the Kingmaker days, it's certainly a step in a different direction. And it's at least a bit of a fix for the problem that Kingmaker had, where you could just have everyone with you no matter what your and their alignment was, and your choice at the beginning (between Valerie/Harrim and Linzi/Jaethal) didn't account to jack, since you could just get them both back a little later like nothing happened. Someone like Tristian at least had a narrative explanation as to why he'd stay with an evil character, but why would someone like Valerie stick around a chaotic barony is a head-scratcher.
I personally like it. In general, I like having to choose between this or that and not having both. But I want information up front and at the earliest possible stage that I'm going to have to make that choice. I don't like it when that choice is thrust upon me out of the blue without prior warning, including especially when I was making other related choices which I would've made differently had I know about this later choice.
I'm somewhat of a completionist myself, and I usually don't replay RPGs, especially if they're really big games. So I do like being able to get "everything" done in one go of the game. But at the same time, I'm okay if that "complete" run has a few things here and there locked out because of choices, so long as I feel I had a fair shot in making *informed* choices that allowed me to have an "optimal" (from my standpoint) run. So "optimal" supercedes "complete" for me.
I agree with this. I absolutely do not like games where I'm building up a certain character only to have them suddenly taken away. I don't like wasting my time on such characters. The only game that did this okay, I felt, was FF7. They made my mouth drop to the ground, so I accepted it. Not really, but I didn't hate Square for it.
Most games that give you a choice and give you a heads up, though, are also fine. I was actually surprised and a bit put off by Kingmaker allowing us to take Harrim and Jaethel, or the reverse. I mean, it was okay, but I felt almost like it made our decision less meaningful. I was fully prepared for my decision to be permanent and I was happy with it because they gave me enough info at the start to make a wise choice.
And like kanisatha, I am also usually a 1 and done cRPGer. I don't really like games where I HAVE to replay them over and over again for the whole story and content.
That said, I do think BG3 has me hooked enough to maybe do more than 1 playthrough. Why? I do find myself hooked by the individual stories. That means, to me, that their companions are actually well written and on a whole different level than Pathfinder.
But, does that mean it's objective or subjective? Who cares? I feel that way. Others may not. Does it really matter whether it's subjective or not?
