Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - General Opinions on amount of companions

I will also say that I disagree with the 'less but better quality' and 'more but lower quality' crowds. I am more in the camp of 'more with high quality'.

I would personally do this by cutting out the origin stories all together. But that is because I have no interest in them. I imagine Larian has to have metrics on how many people played an original character vs. an origin character (does anyone have this data? Maybe it was insanely popular).

But if they cut out the ability to actually play as them it seems like it would cut the amount of work related to companions down exponentially and let them add a higher number of them to their games.

I also think that they could make the companions more unique and interesting because they wouldn't have to share your plight (they wouldn't have to be sourced collared or tadpole brained).

One could share your plight and want to get to the bottom of it with you.
One could genuinely like you and just want to help you.
One could be an old friend you run into again from the prologue or whatever.
One could be righteous and want to figure out what is going on.
One could just need to get to Baldur's Gate and feels safest going with you after your proved you are the big strong.
One could be naive and you could convince them to join you on your quest.
One could see you as a hero and want to tag along to witness/write about your story.
One could be a doctor wanting to study the effects of the tadpole and what is happening to you.
One could be evil and want to find those behind this and join them.
One could feel a debt to you for saving their town, loved ones or whatever.
One could be power hungry and you could promise them big things if they join you.

There are a lot of possibilities that would add a lot of variety - those are just random goofy things off of the top of my head.

There is only so much dev time and so much they can realistically do. I'd rather they work on more of them and cut out the ability to play as them.

I quite like origins. It feels fresh to start a new game and shifting your perception from the blank slate that is Tav to something more original. I also never felt I missed more companions, I already have some playthroughts and still was able to discover new synergies and lore between those you take on your journey. If Larian keep expending those relationship to the current level, I'd say 8 is plenty.

I imagine Larian does have that data but apparently the custom single player experience was lacking in DoS2 and is so far the same in BG3, so it's no wonder players would have felt drawn to playing the Origins companions. In essence, the conclusion drawn from the data is fundamentally skewed in the same way Swen was insistent that players want explosions and fireworks, rather than using support spells, according to their interpretation of their own data.

I personally like it when numbers are smaller in order to create a more intimate and personal story by keeping it confined. Also I won't even need them to fulfill all roles since Larian talked about adding the ability to fully customize the companions, similarly to how the Mirror worked in DOS2. So all it really comes down to me is their personalities and stories, as their roles I'll be able to customize myself, which is why I'm okay with keeping the group small.

I loved all of the 6 characters in DOS2, even though Beast's story felt a bit weak compared to the rest. And I pretty much enjoy all of the BG3 characters so far as all of them are intriguing to me. Even Star Wars KOTOR games felt perfect in size and they had about 10 companions.

As for Origin feature, I enjoy it quite a lot as it gives a perspective and story that the player normally does not get. And an Origin character ends up being widely different as a main character than a companion. Fane in DOS2 for example is miles ahead in terms of story if taken as a main character, compared to just being a companion. Same as Sebille and Red Prince.

To answer Plisko's question, at least in their previous game - Originally, Origin characters were all you could play, at all; extreme player-base demand led them to inserting a custom character, but it was done in a very half-arsed way; the character had no quest lines, no interactions with anything in the game, nothing unique to them, and was entirely a dead mop. The result was that playing with a non-origin character was just an objectively lesser, blander and more empty experience, and made the game itself feel lesser, blander and more empty, compared to the characters they had originally designed who all had a lot of advanced character-specific interaction with things.

The result was that the community advice to new players swiftly became: "Don't play a custom character - there's no point, and you get nothing out of it. There isn't a single thing that playing a custom character lets you experience, over playing an origin, and you just miss out on huge chunks of game an interaction... so don't bother". Despite this, a large proportion of players still did choose a custom character for their first play through, came away deeply dissatisfied with what felt like a half-finished, incomplete game with a half-told, incomplete story, but enjoyed the game enough on its other elements to try again with an origin character, after the community told them it was basically necessary.

The metric that Larian seemed to take away from this was "People love our origin system - even the ones who wanted a custom character came back and played origin characters, so clearly it's a beloved system."

Edit:

To Crimson - having a smaller party to create a more intimate and personal experience is a false equivocation when you hold it alongside other games. Games with large party counts still manage, in most cases to adequately build, story and engage those characters to make them feel close and personal; when you pitch a character into a story, you plan for doing all of that, and you do it for as many characters as you reasonably can, while still maintaining that. Larian doing fewer does not equivocate to them having better, closer or more intimate characters - it's just a sign that they are less capable in this department, or don't care about it as much, and cannot do this as well or with as many characters as other contemporary titles.

I enjoyed Fane's story, sure, and Ifan's... Sebille and Red Prince just absolutely did not land for me at all, Beast was fine, and Loshe was kinda off in her own unrelated world, which was... fine, but eh.

If I were to compare companions in Act 1 of BG3 with companions in Act one of other games with larger character rosters... I felt and immediately stronger senses of interest, attachment and desire to enjoy my experience alongside: Linzi, Jubilost, Neeshka, Sand, Linu, Tommy, Deekin, and others, by the end of the first act of their introduction... than I do for anyone in BG3. Fewer does not equal better quality - it's a false equivocation.

It's fine to enjoy exploring the story of a character that has been pre-written and is predefined to fit into their world.... but that is not what the vast majority of people come to D&D for. They come to play their own characters, to define them, and to make their own decisions as suites those characters that they create. Other games that based around specific, pre-designed characters are certainly very successful and popular... but they aren't D&D games, because that's not what D&D games are about. So... when you make a game and advertise it as a D&D game, and as the definitive example of D&d in a video game, and the successor to an existing D&D franchise... Don't ram your personal characters down my throat; don't focus on your personal predefined characters to the detriment of the character I create for myself.

Well I'm just offering my own personal preference, as that's what the thread asked for. What others expect of the game, want from the game and the disappointments they may have with the game, that is their prerogative. I have no control over that nor the development of the game, I'm just a random nobody ^^

I personally do not look at games through the comparative or expectational lens of advertisements, categories, tags, genres, descriptions nor other games. When I start a game, the quality of the experience from that point onward is all I exclusively care about and nothing else outside of the game exists, as games to me are their own unique and isolated experiences. Meaning that I see DOS2 entirely as its own experience, I see BG3 as its own experience, I see KOTOR as its own experience, I see Dungeons Siege 2 as its own experience... and so on. I take it as a whole and form my opinions exclusively on what the game offers and could make that particular experience better based on everything else within the game, but never because another game did better or more.

So my viewpoints, suggestions and opinions on BG3 are always exclusively based solely upon what I feel enhances or diminishes the overall experience within BG3, because I'm looking at it as its own unique experience to immerse myself in. Not as a quota or a checklist that needs to be fulfilled based on other experiences or expectations.

As far as BG3 goes, I enjoy the amount of companions because that is simply how I love it. To me it feels perfect and it makes the camp cozy like a small dysfunctional family where I can bond with each member in meaningful ways. So I do not feel like I need more because I am content with the ones I do have. Naturally if they wish to add more, they're free to. As long as it feels proper within the game's own experience, not because X or Y game had it.

So... if you purchased a game based on it being advertised as a particular type of product, and something you thought you might enjoy... and when you got it home, you found that it was not, in fact, that thing at all... you would not be unhappy that it had been falsely promoted to you, or that the reason that had drawn you to purchase it was not, in fact, present or true? You would not be annoyed at that, nor expect the industry to hold that product producer to a better standard of representation?

That's what you're claiming, but I don't believe that it's true; I think if you bought a blender, and when you got it home and opened the box to find a toaster, you would not simply appreciate your new toaster and be content that it toasted bread efficiently; you'd take it back to the shop.... because what you wanted when you purchased was a blender, and you made the purchase you did because the product claimed to be a blender - if the product had advertised itself as a toaster you would, on this particular day, have walked past it in search of the blender you were after.

You're welcome to have an opinion that having fewer party members to choose from intrinsically creates more intimate and personal stories... but what I'm pointing out to you is that that is a false equivocation; it is not inherently true, and there are many counter-examples to be had of this. By correlation, both things can be true together, and they often are - but it's not a contingent relation, and if it is your opinion that it is - that one does necessarily entail the other... then that's simply incorrect. A lot of commenters feel that the limited number of companions is stifling, because it presents a list too small to choose a varied party of people that we want to adventure with. Different players have different tastes, and right now there's virtually no choice at all; there should be more. If you're not trying to say that having fewer companions intrinsically means that they will be better, then what you actually end up saying as a result is that you think that if Larian attempt to add more companions, they will let the quality of those companions suffer, in a way that many other games do not and have not... is it your opinion that Larian just aren't up to the task of having more than a few companions, compared to other developers who were? If you don't feel that way, then there's no reason for you not to be in full support of there being more companions to choose from.

==

I'd also suggest that Larian's idea of party bonding is really atrociously lacklustre compared to pretty much every other contemporary game that tackles the issue. There are virtually no interactions or ties between companions that make them feel like they exist in the same space; there are a couple, but really, barely any at all... the majority are blank one-on-one conversations between your cardboard mop player characters, and the NPC who is using the conversation to dunk on you or show off how extra they are in some way... They manage the worst of both worlds, actually, because you either have conversations that are one-on-one conversations that no-one else is even seen to be aware of at all... or there's party banter on the road that completely excludes your character and renders them non-existent. Other games have dialogues and conversations that involve all or at least several party members, which you are also a part of, and they help the party feel like a genuine party. BG3 has maybe one or two of these in Act one... it is by far not the norm.

Yes I mentioned other games again - That's because BG3 does not exist in a vacuum, and my experience and enjoyment of it is directly impacted when it does, or fails to do, something that I've experienced other, older games doing far better. I might be okay eating rock soup with salt... I might find it passable, pleasant even, and I might comment on the interesting kick of flavour that the salt lends to the dish, and consider it a far better dish than rock soup without salt... but if I've had lasagne before, and found it to be an excellent meal, and then someone promises to make me an excellent lasagne meal with their personal twist, I'm not at all going to be appreciate of them serving me rock soup with salt, and talking about how skilful they are at adding the salt, and self-aggrandisingly talking about how much effort they put into getting the application of salt just right; I don't care, and I won't be happy if I paid them to make lasagne.

==

I do think the custom characters do struggle when you compare them to their origin counterparts, even in BG III.

Take Lae'zel for instance. Play a Githyanki fighter and try saying with a straight face that you feel like you have an equal but distinct experience from Laezel. You can't. Particularly with her in the party, you see tons of reactivity from npcs that you don't see as a custom githyanki-even though your backstory is essentially the same.

You drow ranger has the benefit of

A) Being a member of the race with the *most* extra lines written for them, and
B) There are no drow origin party members, and no ranger origin characters (till minsc arrives, at least)

A somewhat common observation during EA has been that drow characters have the most unique experience, so this is a very special case.

Similarly, we can look at Shadowheart & Wyll. Shadowheart is a cleric, and Wyll is a warlock, players can choose to also be a cleric or warlock, but they will not have the unique relationship with their faith that she does in the story, even if they also choose to be a cleric of Shar or Selune. (it's actually kinda eyebrow raising how little anyone cares about you being a cleric of Shar or one of the other evil deities, IMO) Likeswise, non-origin warlocks don't get to interact with their patron at all, while Wyll has this big plot interwoven with the main storyline looking for Mizora.

You guys seem to be sure that Minsc is going to be a companion, even an origin character but I disagree. There is no way he can fit. Larian was probably considering the idea but they must have been discarded it. Same with Helia.

The most we will get is a cameo or an extended quest where he will be a temporary party member similar to Halsin.

The origin system is just something i can't accept about the game, it's the only thing that legit even pisses me off. And it also pisses me off how people can't see the logical problem behind this system, and what it means for custom characters.

I am too tired to go into detail right now again, but let's say that, it is Absolute-ly(sorry pun intended) impossible, to make origin characters protagonists, and having tav as a custom protagonist have the same depth as origin characters. It's a logic thing, you can't avoid it.

Or maybe you could, but it would take a very particular way, don't want to get into spoiler territory.

Also there are other problems with origin characters.

In DOS2, you could choose whatever "class" you wanted, because there were none, and you could do whatever you wanted. Here, you are forced to play a trickery Cleric, or a Fiend Warlock with pact of the blade, and they both suck, well, the cleric less because they are still a cleric, but you get the point.

Also, really, people have pointed this out, but what is wrong with the superhero themed origin characters? How is Gale an archmage with a shadow orb and level 1? How is Karlach Zariel's champion and level 1? How is Shadowheart level 1 and sent to recover an absolutely important artifact to Baldur's Gate? How is Astarion a vampire spawn 300 year old level 1 rogue?

And even if level 1 is somehow miraculously explained because they lost or forgot their powers, what does their superhero hyperbolic theme make Tav look like in comparison? So we're just the nobody again but people are happy because they get to play clean slate? Are we happy now because the druids recognized you're a druid and let you pass, although they were going to let you pass anyway no matter who you are?

Origin characters have whole story, meaningful backround and quests tailored to them, ALONG with whatever Tav will get to experience as part of the main story, if they are protagonists. If you make Tav experience something unique, then you exclude parts of the story when you play with origin characters, and we all know that cannot happen if it's integral to the story. You can't play 3 different stories depending on your selected character.

I eagerly await to see what way they found to fix the problem of Tav seeming like a nobody compared to origin chars. Because as i see it, if the reactivity to your class and backround in dialogues is the magical way of fixing that you're a nobody, it's not gonna end well. Reactivity works for origin chars as well. And they have questlines associated with them.

No i REALLY cannot understand how they thought the origin system would work well in a game that always had 1 protagonist. It impacts how your custom character is handled, and it impacts the quality and quantity of companions you get.

As someone pointed out, a Githyanki character still feels worse than Lae'zel, and a rogue character will always miss that vampire bite of Astarion, that will always give him a better buff and edge on combat.

What is Tav's thing? What is that thing that makes Tav special, what's their special ability? Because everyone else seems to have one, or will most certainly have one, both mechanically and story wise.

I am gonna wait to find out, i hope it's something that will be at least worth it.

I don't know how to respond to this really as marketing has no effect on me, so I never put myself in such situations to begin with.

The concept for me when it comes to buying games is quite simple. My only measurement of interest is seeing raw unedited gameplay. I do not care what a game claims to be nor how many awards it has nor how popular it may be... all I care about is raw gameplay in its rawest form and whether it looks like something I would really enjoy. So I am unable to disappoint myself because the things I am looking for in a game are literally there in front of me. I saw BG3 as a very impressive looking turn-based RPG. I liked it, I bought it, now I tremendously enjoy it and I am getting what I want out of it. Everything else is just a pleasant bonus to me.

So what I said I truly meant. I do not look at games through the lenses that others do and fill myself with expectations based on that. I do not look at Baldur's Gate 3 and go; "Oh... Baldur's Gate cRPG. Well that must mean 20 companions, no chain system, no surface attacks, every choice matters, grim serious atmosphere, no talking squirrels, real time with pause, day/night cycle, unlimited party size, proper reactions, proper DnD systems, math calculations, no origin characters and so on whatever is promised or not promised.".

I looked at it and went; "Wow, this game looks amazing. I want to play it". I got exactly what attracted me in the first place and it all went from there. I accept it and enjoy it for what it is and what it offers. That's how I feel about it.

People online have the tendency to think binary. 0 or 1, right or wrong, black or white, for or against, true or false, left or right... but never middle. You say that I am welcome to an opinion, but then say it is false, when all I am truly expressing is my own preference based on my own experience as a person in a situation that does not require a binary result

All I truly said was that I personally prefer a small group. Quality was nowhere mentioned, just quantity. Because I as a person am more easily, intimately and personally connected to companions when there's not too many of them. Larian could make 100 companions that are equally as interesting, complex and captivating as all the rest if they want to... it would not change my preference nor make it false, as what I said is true of my own self. I'd still prefer to keep a small group because I cannot connect equally to 100 companions even if they all were fascinatingly complex. My attention cannot expand that much. I can however connect to 10 or less, which is how I prefer it. To keep my attention confined, rather than expanded.

See in DOS2 for example my party felt too small, because I did not even remotely enjoy seeing Ifan and Beast die aboard Lady Vengeance due to party size. It sucked. In BG3 however, I am completely fine with the amount because they're all safe in my camp and I interact with each one equally. And I can take a few more in.

But if I have to choose who gets to stay at the camp or who gets to die, then yeah... it will be a problem again. If I have to kick someone out in order to bring someone in, then it's too many companions. And if I have to watch them die again, then it's too few. If I can have all of them within the camp though, then I'm alright. The fitting number depends on the game.

I cannot say I feel the same about dialogue and companions, as one of my favorite things in the game is watching companion interaction with one another and even everyone being included at once. And my favorite especially being Shadowheart and Lae'zel often threatening one another. I love the interactions so much that I am literally squeezing every single drop of dialogue out of the game wherever I can find it. So I personally find the interactions quite lively and lovely.

As for how you feel about the game, everyone has a right to like it or dislike it for whatever reason. Not up to me to question it.

Every update seems to add more minsc-related dialogue. There's nothing to indicate that he's been dropped. Unlike Helia, he has also been the focus of a lot of WOTC marketing, in particular with the mtg set that the aforementioned Helia was suspiciously absent from.

Minsc and Karlach are 100% making it into the game as origins characters. It's only Helia that's really up in the air right now AFAIK.

Maybe Helia is replaced by Halsin.

🤞🤞🤞

Is it really the case? I haven't seen any Minsc related content datamining since Patch 4 or so. Can you show me some examples?

Crimson,

First off, I'm a bit sad that you elected to ignore the main point where I was reaching out to you for understanding; since you expressed that you feel the PC in BG3 doesn't suffer in the same way that the custom PC in D:OS2 did... I really do want to understand what differences you're seeing, and how the experience has differed for you in that regard, because I cannot see it myself; I'd like to.

The rest aside, I mainly commented at first because it felt as though you were saying, specifically, that having a smaller list of companions was necessary for close and personal story links – that you supported Larian in making such a restricted companion list for that reason, and wanted them to keep it that way, because it was some objective truth that one necessarily entailed and required the other... I was saying that having a smaller party does not intrinsically mean a more intimate and personal story, nor a larger one, less so; That's false. It's factually incorrect, and the two should not be equivocated, because doing so is misleading.

With more clarity, I can see that it wasn't your intention to say that; you were speaking purely subjectively, about what was necessary for you, and you alone; perhaps my fault for misinterpreting your words in the first place. I was overly reactionary, and I apologise.

It does sound, however, as though they could still make a larger character companion roster, and it wouldn't detriment your experience at all, because you could simply choose the ~6 that you liked the feel of the most and wanted to engage with for the story, and so your personal experience would be just as satisfying... unless just having the knowledge that there were other potential companions you weren't focusing on would detract from the experience for you? ...I honestly shouldn't think that it would, given the way you describe your compartmentalising of games and isolating their experiences from one another.

On that note, unfortunately... Larian have suggested in interviews that they do, indeed, intend to do the same thing again, as they did with D:OS2, and forcefully remove the companions you don't specifically choose to have with you, at the end of the first act. There's been wide-spread and almost unanimous resistance to this, but they've not released any further comment.

Equivocate; You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

The only thing that can guarantees meaningful companion interactions is writing and word-count. Of course everyone has their own opinion on what is and isn't a good companion, but using Baldur's Gate II as an example, I think most of the people you can take on have a distinct voice, usually a quest that allows them to express some character and world-view. And that carries on to the newer games too, Dragon Age and Mass Effect are mostly remembered for the companions than the central storylines, that's how it is for me anyway, and their rosters aren't small.

Helia is supposed to be a bard according to datamining, so I don't think, that will happen.

I want more companions, with interesting stories, but Not over the top, like most of the ones, we have now.
And they really don't need to be origin characters.
BG was always about having tons of choices, especially with companions and I would love to have that again.
I'm sure, that won't happen, but still, I can hope.

Her meaning was understood, but yes equivalence/equate is what she is meaning to use I think.

sort of on topic, I'm not convinced Minsc will be a companion either. His personality as we know it just doesn't at all fit any of Larian's current companions. It would be such a weird contrast, and this is Minsc we're talking about, how the hell is he going to be a level 1 companion?

as for really on topic, my only issue with a small amount of companions and it's one i've mentioned before is that if I don't enjoy one or two of them, and they're the only 'x' class we get, I'm out of luck. I either don't have a certain class in my party that I might want, or I'm forced to create the class as my player character. With a large number of companions, I have a higher chance of liking a solid 4 - 5 of them.

Better to make a mistake here, among friends, than in the real world.

I think they could easily massage Minsc into the group: being turned into a statue did it, or the tadpole did it, etc. As for tone, well I remember speculating that being implanted might have cured his brain damage, but even if it didn't Minsc wasn't exactly 'on book' in the other games either, so I'd probably still be able to roll with it.

Does having to choose a companion solely for metagaming purposes, qualify as ludo-narrative dissonance. I haven't played with Astarion for a number of my last runs, and even without Shadowheart, I don't think I lost out on anything. There's always a key, or a platforming side entrance for the locked doors. The only times I've actually been locked out of something, is if every party member whiffed a perception check.