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.
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.
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.
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'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 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.
