Larian Banner
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 3 of 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Joined: Aug 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Aug 2020
Personally I think even just being allowed five companions out of however many potential companions would more or less erase the issue for me. At least that way you can have two companions in reserve to switch out if your current party composition isn't enough to get you through a combat. I just feel like the small party size and then a fixed party after Act 1 forces players to stick with more optimal builds for their parties and it discourages taking risks with character designs. I feel it gives players less margin for error. For instance in PoE 1 and 2, I like giving my characters high resolve, even when resolve isn't a stat that directly helps make the character better in her niche. I also like to alternate my party members and play less optimal parties with characters I find particularly interesting when I know the combat challenge won't be too intense, then bringing a more balanced party for serious encounters. I'd be a lot more constrained in BG3 by the sound of it. But then I suppose that sort of thing is what Story difficulty is for.

Joined: Mar 2020
Banned
Offline
Banned
Joined: Mar 2020
Having companions stick around has been something that RPGs have had as a staple since FF Tactics and Chrono Trigger. The End of Time in CT in particular is a prime example of how to let companions do their thing and you can take them whenever you want/need.

There is a camp mechanic already in the game. There is no reason to exclude companions.

Well ... there is a possible explanation: money and laziness.

Larian already has the DOS2 formula, and they are clearly reluctant to change it. Swen is adamant in this. It is cheaper in development to cut out companions, and cheaper in development not to try and change what they already have.

Divinity 3: Baldur's Gate.

Joined: Mar 2020
Banned
Offline
Banned
Joined: Mar 2020
It's cheaper because they only have to focus on 4C4 (4 choose 4) dynamic dialogue options at a time, not 8C4 or, like BG 1 and 2, 18C6.

This is basic logarithmic math.

never mind, you deleted your post.

I am just waiting for the other shoe to drop and they tell us "we can make the Origin characters whatever class we need" ... #puke. What a lazy way to balance the game and reduce player choice. You throw it up as a great "you can be whatever"! promise, but it just turns in to every party being the same, just different actors playing different roles. It's boring.

Last edited by qhristoff; 24/09/20 05:30 PM.
Joined: Mar 2020
Location: Belfast
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Mar 2020
Location: Belfast
Originally Posted by qhristoff
It's cheaper because they only have to focus on 4C4 (4 choose 4) dynamic dialogue options at a time, not 8C4 or, like BG 1 and 2, 18C6.

How would that work exactly? You still can choose any combination of characters, so they need to be create anyway. BG1&2 companion content is rather basic. Most RPG have more complex and time consuming companions then BG1 or 2.

Joined: Mar 2020
Banned
Offline
Banned
Joined: Mar 2020
When they are programming and accounting for resources, the more companions they allow, the more variability in the dialogue trees and other dynamic relationship based systems they have in place. This costs money.

Limiting the choices means they can "fix" the resource allocation and make each outcome a uniform algorithm like they did with DOS2.

In programming, less math = cheaper development. It's just numbers.

Joined: Sep 2020
stranger
Offline
stranger
Joined: Sep 2020
Originally Posted by qhristoff
When they are programming and accounting for resources, the more companions they allow, the more variability in the dialogue trees and other dynamic relationship based systems they have in place. This costs money.

Limiting the choices means they can "fix" the resource allocation and make each outcome a uniform algorithm like they did with DOS2.

In programming, less math = cheaper development. It's just numbers.


What he's saying is that since any of the available companions can be chosen before the "cutoff point" in any combination of 3, it makes no difference in resource allocation for dialogue because the dialogue has to account for any potential combination of characters anyway.

Last edited by JustPlainRob; 24/09/20 06:26 PM.
Joined: Aug 2020
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
Joined: Aug 2020
Oh boy, this is a tough one. I feel the companions are the best thing about the old games. It just feels wrong making me decide who i want to take with me that early in the game. I know that more play throughs will solve that problem but a lot of the fun in BG was switching in and out all the different companions. This decision doesnt feel very BG to be honest. All that being said, I will just wait and see how it goes. This new game has been such a yo-yo ride so far. At first I was like OMG a new BG game, YAY! Then first reveal i was like, "this isnt BG" at all YUCK! Then more news I was totally interested again. This is another Yuck! moment but depending on the story reason and the fun of replaying the game it could just be much ado about nothing.

Joined: Mar 2020
Banned
Offline
Banned
Joined: Mar 2020
Originally Posted by JustPlainRob
Originally Posted by qhristoff
When they are programming and accounting for resources, the more companions they allow, the more variability in the dialogue trees and other dynamic relationship based systems they have in place. This costs money.

Limiting the choices means they can "fix" the resource allocation and make each outcome a uniform algorithm like they did with DOS2.

In programming, less math = cheaper development. It's just numbers.


What he's saying is that since any of the available companions can be chosen before the "cutoff point" in any combination of 3, it makes no difference in resource allocation for dialogue because the dialogue has to account for any potential combination of characters anyway.

I understand that. What *I* am saying is that this costs Larian less, and is a carbon copy of DOS2 - thus lazy.

Joined: Mar 2019
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Mar 2019
As I think someone else stated, a more interesting path for the story would be for the companions you passed on to resurface later, as enemies or just npcs (ideally, to a greater extent than was done in DOS2). Without a story line that supports it, having all the characters at your beck and call makes them shallow. At least in DAI, for example, you are the “chosen one” or whatever (a grossly hackneyed premise by now), so I guess the idea of all the unused companions just hanging around home base isn’t completely ridiculous. So far in BG3, though,it seems the main player isn’t any more special than any of the other characters. So why would they hang around waiting for you to throw them a bone?

Joined: Aug 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Aug 2020
I feel as though that's a pretty overly broad claim. We've seen a lot of the flexibility they're trying to implement in the game in other areas. The detail of the world, the implementation of various spells, they're trying to stuff in a hell of a lot. I don't like this choice, I'm not gonna sugar coat it. Maybe it'll turn out fine but this is not the choice I would have wanted them to make. But I don't think it makes them lazy. Even if they're going this route to save money, I'm seeing all the money going into all kinds of other aspects of the game and when you make a choice to save money that you then apply towards making other aspects of a thing better, that's just good money management. They don't have endless resources so even acting under the most cynical assumptions, they're saving money in one area while having proven that they're not shy about spending it in others.

Joined: Sep 2020
Location: California
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
Joined: Sep 2020
Location: California
Originally Posted by Emrikol
As I think someone else stated, a more interesting path for the story would be for the companions you passed on to resurface later, as enemies or just npcs (ideally, to a greater extent than was done in DOS2). Without a story line that supports it, having all the characters at your beck and call makes them shallow. At least in DAI, for example, you are the “chosen one” or whatever (a grossly hackneyed premise by now), so I guess the idea of all the unused companions just hanging around home base isn’t completely ridiculous. So far in BG3, though,it seems the main player isn’t any more special than any of the other characters. So why would they hang around waiting for you to throw them a bone?


This is easily rectified by not having them wait in camp - like the original games, they could have them wait in predetermined areas outside of camp (hometowns, random taverns, areas in the wilderness, etc). I believe it was the EEs that introduced having them wait at a single common point for easy pick up if you so desired. It worked.

Joined: Mar 2019
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Mar 2019
Originally Posted by CandrianIllborne
Originally Posted by Emrikol
As I think someone else stated, a more interesting path for the story would be for the companions you passed on to resurface later, as enemies or just npcs (ideally, to a greater extent than was done in DOS2). Without a story line that supports it, having all the characters at your beck and call makes them shallow. At least in DAI, for example, you are the “chosen one” or whatever (a grossly hackneyed premise by now), so I guess the idea of all the unused companions just hanging around home base isn’t completely ridiculous. So far in BG3, though,it seems the main player isn’t any more special than any of the other characters. So why would they hang around waiting for you to throw them a bone?


This is easily rectified by not having them wait in camp - like the original games, they could have them wait in predetermined areas outside of camp (hometowns, random taverns, areas in the wilderness, etc). I believe it was the EEs that introduced having them wait at a single common point for easy pick up if you so desired. It worked.

Camp, tavern, etc. All the same. Doesn't really answer why they would be waiting on the player's summons.

Joined: Aug 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Aug 2020
I'm just gonna voice my personal opinion on the matter and say that question doesn't really need an answer. Obviously if the creators of a game can give a good, narratively satisfying answer that's the better course of action, but at the same time it's a game, there's a suspension of disbelief inherent in the buy-in of the game. Am I alone in thinking this issue really isn't a big deal? If it matters to you then okay, I obviously want you to have games that line up with your sensibilities, but I genuinely am surprised that so many people see companions hanging back at camp due to party size limitations as an actual thing worth remarking on.

Joined: Sep 2020
Location: California
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
Joined: Sep 2020
Location: California
Originally Posted by Emrikol
Originally Posted by CandrianIllborne
Originally Posted by Emrikol
As I think someone else stated, a more interesting path for the story would be for the companions you passed on to resurface later, as enemies or just npcs (ideally, to a greater extent than was done in DOS2). Without a story line that supports it, having all the characters at your beck and call makes them shallow. At least in DAI, for example, you are the “chosen one” or whatever (a grossly hackneyed premise by now), so I guess the idea of all the unused companions just hanging around home base isn’t completely ridiculous. So far in BG3, though,it seems the main player isn’t any more special than any of the other characters. So why would they hang around waiting for you to throw them a bone?


This is easily rectified by not having them wait in camp - like the original games, they could have them wait in predetermined areas outside of camp (hometowns, random taverns, areas in the wilderness, etc). I believe it was the EEs that introduced having them wait at a single common point for easy pick up if you so desired. It worked.

Camp, tavern, etc. All the same. Doesn't really answer why they would be waiting on the player's summons.


I feel that it worked in the original games, because it gives the impression of, and allows the player the fantasy of these members going about their daily lives in a different location. While I'm not with them in my own party I can sort of imagine that they're going about their own lives in a different location while also maintaining the player need to be able to call on them whenever needed. I feel that this is much more preferable than simply not allowing the player to access them at all. Early on in the BG saga there's no huge reason why a lot of companions would be necessarily waiting around for the main character either, but they do. Sometimes those reasons are spelled out (Jaheira and Khalid being asked to help by Gorion) and sometimes it's a simple desire to adventure. It's a small conceit but it works and gives the player flexibility.

But yes, I wouldn't disagree that having them all in camp is sort of shallow but not a major issue in my opinion. If they're all infected with the tadpole though, that makes more sense. I'm wondering if all of the companions will be infected or if there are others who are adventuring for other reasons.

Last edited by CandrianIllborne; 24/09/20 08:38 PM.
Joined: Sep 2015
N
old hand
Offline
old hand
N
Joined: Sep 2015
Originally Posted by Gray Ghost
I'm just gonna voice my personal opinion on the matter and say that question doesn't really need an answer. Obviously if the creators of a game can give a good, narratively satisfying answer that's the better course of action, but at the same time it's a game, there's a suspension of disbelief inherent in the buy-in of the game. Am I alone in thinking this issue really isn't a big deal? If it matters to you then okay, I obviously want you to have games that line up with your sensibilities, but I genuinely am surprised that so many people see companions hanging back at camp due to party size limitations as an actual thing worth remarking on.


Well, I guess it comes down to the fact some people think games should be made for them. Because they are paying for a product, it should satisfy everything they expect from it. But truly, unless you make it yourself, it will never be exactly how you would want it to be. And so, according to the level to tolerance each of us have, some will whine more than others, even on things they can only speculate about because they have not the slightest idea how it's gonna be in the final release.

Last edited by Nyanko; 24/09/20 09:29 PM.
Joined: May 2019
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: May 2019
If this silly condition remains in the game at final launch, a mod to increase party size will become that much more of an imperative. And I would hope such a mod will even allow increasing party size beyond six, perhaps to eight. That way we can lock in and protect at least seven companions at the end of Act 1 going into Act 2.

Joined: Jun 2019
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Jun 2019
"While I'm not with them in my own party I can sort of imagine that they're going about their own lives in a different location while also maintaining the player need to be able to call on them whenever needed"

Yes! That is the trick ... Narlen Darkwalk, Gorpel Hind, Soulefin, Drizzt to a degree, etc. Those characters were out doing things on their own, and occasionally their stories would cross paths with the PC. That makes them so much more interesting than NPC's who stand on a street corner like lampposts, just waiting for you to come back and report that you completed a quest. Those "active" NPC's were definitely a highlight of the BG series for me. Oh, and of course Shaellla, who really should have had more appearances.

Joined: Sep 2020
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Sep 2020
I didn't hate losing those party members. On my very first playthrough, I had already decided on my party makeup based on personalities. And despite my decision, it was nice running into them later and still getting the opportunity to speak with them and see how things ended up working out. On subsequent playthroughs, I eventually cycled everyone into my party at least once to get their full story.

Also, the 4-person party cap doesn't bother me in the slightest. Smaller groups tend to feel more tight-knit and flesh themselves out better in the long run from what I've seen.


I don't want to fall to bits 'cos of excess existential thought.

Joined: Aug 2020
stranger
Offline
stranger
Joined: Aug 2020
Originally Posted by qhristoff
Having companions stick around has been something that RPGs have had as a staple since FF Tactics and Chrono Trigger. The End of Time in CT in particular is a prime example of how to let companions do their thing and you can take them whenever you want/need.

There is a camp mechanic already in the game. There is no reason to exclude companions.

Well ... there is a possible explanation: money and laziness.

Larian already has the DOS2 formula, and they are clearly reluctant to change it. Swen is adamant in this. It is cheaper in development to cut out companions, and cheaper in development not to try and change what they already have.

Divinity 3: Baldur's Gate.


What exactly makes it cheaper?
With a party size of 4, you still have all possible story interactions. Nothing of it is cut, you just cannot mix in/swap out 3% interaction with another character in midstory anymore for that one mission you choose him/her to be with you.
People in general must learn to make decisions, meaningfull decisions and desicions that come with a price are the best ones. Decisions for someone and against someone else, at the same time, are the most powerfull things we have to overcome. And i like that alot.

Joined: Sep 2020
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Sep 2020
Originally Posted by PUR3ICE
Originally Posted by qhristoff
Having companions stick around has been something that RPGs have had as a staple since FF Tactics and Chrono Trigger. The End of Time in CT in particular is a prime example of how to let companions do their thing and you can take them whenever you want/need.

There is a camp mechanic already in the game. There is no reason to exclude companions.

Well ... there is a possible explanation: money and laziness.

Larian already has the DOS2 formula, and they are clearly reluctant to change it. Swen is adamant in this. It is cheaper in development to cut out companions, and cheaper in development not to try and change what they already have.

Divinity 3: Baldur's Gate.


What exactly makes it cheaper?
With a party size of 4, you still have all possible story interactions. Nothing of it is cut, you just cannot mix in/swap out 3% interaction with another character in midstory anymore for that one mission you choose him/her to be with you.
People in general must learn to make decisions, meaningfull decisions and desicions that come with a price are the best ones. Decisions for someone and against someone else, at the same time, are the most powerfull things we have to overcome. And i like that alot.


I agree with this. It's way too easy to "save scum" to get a desirable result, and I feel as though a lack of situations where you're forced to make a hard decision is essentially save scumming. I don't fully endorse *every* forced decision across the board when it comes to games, but something like choosing your team in a situation like this makes sense. I'm sure that there will be enough character development before the cut-off point to make a determination on who you'd like to take with you. And let's be honest, people are likely to do more than one playthrough, and those other characters will be an option to explore their stories.


I don't want to fall to bits 'cos of excess existential thought.

Page 3 of 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Link Copied to Clipboard
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5