I seem to vaguely remember (maybe from Panel From Hell 1, or some similar pre-Early Access communication) Larian saying that, compared to BG2, BG3 would have fewer Companions but each would be more developed. I never bought into this argument, as it kind of implies that Larian has the same budget as Bioware.
I don’t think that follows. Larian aren’t saying that they’ll spend the same amount on companions as BG2 but put it into depth rather than quantity. I’m sure they’ll be spending far, far more. But most of the BG2 companions didn’t have much content or reactivity to events, were only partly voiced and sprite animation was pretty standard and basic. It wouldn’t surprise me if the work that goes into creating a BG3-type companion were orders of magnitude greater.
Oh sure. Larian certainly has a much bigger budget than what Bioware had. And their cost per companion is certainly much higher as well.
What I meant to say is this. If you say "I'll give you fewer companions than BG2 but each will have more depth and character development than the BG2 companions have", you are comparing your product to BG2 (twice). You're setting BG2 as reference point for content. And my reaction to this is : sure, but that's not very relevant, since you don't have the same budget as BG2. (In Larian's defence, they may have been prompted by an interviewer or show host who asked about the number of companions, relative to BG2. It may not have been Larian's idea to compare number and depth of companions in BG3 with those of BG2.)
Let's say, for the sake of example, that Larian's budget (or at least the budget dedicated to companions) is 4 times that of Bioware. And that the cost per companion's depth is the same. Then, Larian could do 4 times as many companions with the same depth. Or as many companions with 4 times the depth. Or twice as many companions with twice the depth. Or half as many companions with 8 times the depth. Or a quarter as many companions with 16 times the depth. Etc. (And I'd have been in favour of something closer to "as many companions with 4 times the depth", or more precisely, of not cutting companion number below 12.)
Of course, due to the focus on graphics (and to some extent voice acting, though I suspect animation is the bigger cost), the cost per companion's depth in higher in BG3. Maybe 10 times higher. Then again, technology and game engines have progressed in the past 20 years, so maybe the cost is just 5 times higher. And maybe Larian has 20 times the budget for companions that Bioware had (meaning they could do 4 times as well as Bioware). Or they have 10 times the budget. Or 30 times. I don't know.
Anyway, I said, I think there
should be at least 12 companions,
ideally. And I'd be disappointed if we don't end up with at least 10 companions.
But realistically, and in terms of expectation, I don't really expect 10. In fact, 9 would already be a positive surprise.
