Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - General If the main hero dies, and you don't revive them, can you still finish the game?

Ha! When you put it like that the terminology I used is indeed not very clear. To my defence I have written D:OS2 critique years ago.

As I have written in my post companions in D:OS2 didn't feel like they had much presence or identity. In the last decade companions came a long way - especially Obsidian often uses companions to amplify game's setting or themes. If the game has factions, that there will be faction representatives in your party, giving player an opportunity to interact and be judged by a variety of political believs/species/cultures etc. In general, I also found their story content to be very, very small compared to what I grew to expect, especially from such small roster of characters. Their unique content doesn't really go beyond one short interaction per-chapter. Which considering the length of the game isn't terribly impressive. Compary it to PoE1 or especially PoE2, where characters have lengthy storylines and unique interactions with NPCs.

Yes, companions in D:OS2 do technically have quests or even romances and what is there I liked. But it is very basic, and disjointed and just not much of it considering it's 100hour plus adventure. Yes Lhose sang a song after killing one of the bosses. Oh Whoopie Doo. (sarcasm aside, her quest leading up to it was genuilly good with what must have been the only interesting choice to make in the entire game. Add much more of that and we would have a good companion)

It also doesn't help that D:OS2 really felt like it was built for coop play, and I often felt it necessary to engage in conversation with different party memebers. I ended up talking more with Red Prince than character I was playing as, simple because he seemed better suited for conversing than my PC. The very ability to play as companions felt wrong as well - am I playing as my character or am I not? Is it a team based RPG, like Icewind Dale, Wasteland 2&3 or Solasta or is it singleplayer RPG with companions? The answer is: it is a coop game and if you play wihtout friend you are doing it wrong cause the game wasn't desinged for that.

In summary what I tried to express by "coop buddy stand-in" is that the game doesn't feel right when playing singleplayer - like a coop partner is missing. You know how you can often take a multiplayer game, and still play it by yourself - like Overwatch, or SWAT4. It plays single player, but it feel wrong and an important chunk of the game is missing without fellow players. You can do a lot of stuff in D:OS2, but no one will react to it, because that that left up to coop player. For the vast majority of the playtime companions are just there standing around, and having no worldview, thought or opinion of their own. That's is how I felt about D:OS2 - companions weren't convincing as NPCs, had very limited content and didn't interact with player much, and it felt like other people should be controlling them.


The difference with Baldur's Gate3 is that characters DO have a lot of content, and DO have strong opinions and DO want to do things that you might not want to do - like your coop partner would. So unlike D:OS2 were you are left with inanimate husks of companions, characters in BG3 are chock full of unique content. In that way, Larian has addressed the very complain that I had (if I remember correctly from D:OS2 post mortem companions were shoved in at the last minute, so the final result is not surprising). Their written role, however, is not of companions (supporting cast to give feedback to YOUR actions, and act as YOUR window to a larger world, like in Obsiidan RPGs) but of coop players - Laez, for example, has same story as you, but also opinion on how should you proceed. As such companions in BG3 feel like attempt to replace coop partners, rather than provide companions for a singleplayer experience, and they fall short in that regard. Still an improvement on D:OS2, no doubt about that.



RPGs come in two flavours - customisable character (BG1&2, Fallout1&2, Arcanum, Bloodlines etc.) and pre-defined character (Mass Effect, Witcher games). D:OS2 and BG3 actially allows for both, it just doesn't do neither well (I can't speak how BG3 plays as origin for obvious reasons).

My complain for playing a custom doesn't come from character creation but from game content itself. For example there have been many complaints about cutscenes that make your Tav do things that the character you are rolepaying wouldn't do. That is a very surface level example, problems run much deeper (including lack of ability to express your character's intentions, class options projecting archetype rather just the skillset that comes from the class or lack of ability to express what your character thinks etc) but I think it easily illustrates the conflict BG3 runs into.



Yes. If there are 4 coop players they are all protagonist - or they form an ensamble cast (I don't know if there can be more than one protagonist per story). In absence of coop players companions fill that void, rather than being companions to YOUR story like in other RPGs.


Realistically for BG3? What I mentioned - write in a reason for companions to defer to your judgement. Write them more softly with uncertaintly as to what to do next, or have a scene when they argue and allow Tav to pick a direction for a team as a neutral observer. You know standard stuff RPGs have been doing for over a decade now.


More theoretically for future titles: if Larian wants to keep using Origin system - make "companions" feel more like independent beings. Have them be characters player can ally with, than pokemons player collects and equips for battle. Classic companion system doesn't work if they are not written as side characters of your story.

Or: ditch origin system, and create companions handcrafted to be just that and a playable character handcrafted to be just that (be it custom or pre-defined). That of course, would bring Larian titles more in line with the competition and it might not be the most interesting direction to take.


On a side note, I can't help but to notice that you keep bringing up games I just don't have high opinion of: Skyrim, D:OS2, Dragon Age: Inquisition. It could be that our basedline of what RPG should be just differs a lot.