Larian Banner
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 3 of 4 1 2 3 4
Joined: Oct 2020
stranger
Offline
stranger
Joined: Oct 2020
All of the points here are great, i'm on the "pls don't team" but i think there are ways this might partially work.
First of all, we do not know for sure how long Act 1 will be, will the scuffle at the towers be a beginning of Act 2, or the finale of Act 1 (which i hope for). In either case, i think it would be great, that after the tadpoles are removed, you get to keep the people that have high opinion of you, and the ones that you didn't got along with just go their way (Like, Shadowheart goes on with her quest, Astarion goes to Baldur's Gate and so on). It wouldn't be too OP since every decision comes with someone liking it and someone that do not. So there won't be a possibility to keep all of the people - someone will surely go away. I really hope they won't force us to chose by ourselves at the end of the act/story arc, because it doesn't make sense for DnD. In DOS:2 you could basically just scratch the character's skills and start all over, depending on your needs. In DnD it's not possible, so cutting us off so abruptly wouldn't be nice.

Joined: Feb 2021
Location: Alaska
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: Feb 2021
Location: Alaska
As said earlier in the thread... all of the origin characters are inherently selfish individuals to some degree. This said, once the tadpole issue is "resolved" there is ZERO reason to continue on with them. I don't feel emotional attachment to any of these origin characters after putting in over 300 hours playing this EA. I don't like there personalities, or the quirks, and would just as soon let them all die. The only reason to stay with them is the common thread of the tadpole, and after that, I would be spending my time solo, or picking up a new set of companions. So locking unwanted companions in at the end of ACT one is illogical at best from my perspective. And that action of forcing the player into a narrow combination of companionship would make this game very linear and likely make it less enjoyable to play. I also realize the Developers cannot produce an unlimited number of "add on" characters either. But some other options would be welcome, and a complete change of the guard (companions) at Act 2 might also be welcome to some. I just want more options. Don't throw me in a trench with no way out (figuratively).

Joined: Nov 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Nov 2020
I think I made my opinion very clear in other threads. Party Locking would not be good for this game in any way. It would be bad for the plot, how the player feels playing, and for the mechanics.

Joined: Sep 2017
member
Offline
member
Joined: Sep 2017
I would like to chip in and say I am also on the please don't do party locking bandwagon.

I would also like to suggest that IF Larian listens and does this, then I would also like to see two things added: have camp inventory unlocked, so we can cycle through all of the characters' inventories and not just the ones who are in our active party; and add an actual party management feature similar to the one in the original saga. This would resolve not being able to recruit new characters into your party immediately when you're already at 4. It would also consolidate the current two-step process of first talking to the person you want to drop and then talking to the character you want to bring along into the one-step process of simply talking to the character you want to bring along.

Last edited by dreambled; 24/07/21 08:42 PM.
Joined: Jan 2021
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Jan 2021
Some people just don't get along. Like Lae'zel and Shadowheart.

The party is forced to work together because of the tadpole, if it's gone it's the same as your high school classmates. Once high school is over, did you keep in contact with everyone you chilled in class with? Or only the ones you actually had friendship with?

I hope any party locking won't be as dire as Divinity: Original Sin 2. But having to choose between Shadowheart or Lae'zel is pretty cool.
Astarion and Lar'zel seem the most evil aligned, Shadowheart, Gale, and Wyll all seem neutral.

Right now it's looking like half the party versus the other half (pure speculation). Which isn't too bad considering Karlach is another character. So hopefully it will be group of 3 (A) or group of 3 (B), which is a lot more interesting than what happened in Divinity: Original Sin 2.

Joined: Mar 2020
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Mar 2020
Has there been a categoric "Party Locking means no changing/finding new companions post Act1"?

Or is everyone jumping on this because Larian have previous in DOS2 and stated they want you to choose out of the initial companions which ones to go forward with?

Joined: Nov 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Nov 2020
Past experience with DOS2 and relative silence on the subject makes it seem like a tangible possibility.

Joined: Dec 2020
S
addict
Offline
addict
S
Joined: Dec 2020
Originally Posted by Riandor
Has there been a categoric "Party Locking means no changing/finding new companions post Act1"?

Or is everyone jumping on this because Larian have previous in DOS2 and stated they want you to choose out of the initial companions which ones to go forward with?

Right now the argument basically revolves around whether the possibility of party locking is either going to be due to a willing player choice, or only ultimately enforced due to an arbitrary party headcount limit in the end. Considering how badly D:OS2 pulled it off so that it was squarely in the latter camp, people are right to fear that the possibility of it happening in BG3 will be along the lines of the latter once more.

Joined: Aug 2014
1
old hand
Offline
old hand
1
Joined: Aug 2014
I'm still missing the more down to earth companions like Eder, Ajantis, Branwen, Kivan, Keldorn, Jaheira, Valygar, Jan or many others from BG1 and 2.

I don't feel right forming a party where everyone is an alien, vampire, werewolf or has crazy over the top secrets if they are "only human". I want one of these characters so outlandish doesn't become the norm and the normal characters act as anchors to a believable FR setting. BG2 understood this and not everyone was an Avariel.

It also seems like you have a choice between an alien or devil for your party warrior and they're also both female. For such a basic role I would want to have an option for something more ordinary. Wasn't Eder by far the most popular companion in Pillars of Eternity, where you also have godlikes with flaming heads and such.

Good writing is much more important than creative or fantastical characters. If you have too many "special" characters it just becomes a weird menagerie where they compete who's the most creative and undermine the story.

Joined: Sep 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Sep 2020
Originally Posted by Riandor
Has there been a categoric "Party Locking means no changing/finding new companions post Act1"?

Or is everyone jumping on this because Larian have previous in DOS2 and stated they want you to choose out of the initial companions which ones to go forward with?
In Community Update 7, Larian said
Originally Posted by Larian
Will companions be interchangeable during long rest?
Yes, at the start of your adventure your recruited companions will be at camp when not in the adventuring party, and can be swapped in and out at camp. Just like friends in real life! After the first act however you are going to have to commit, also just like in real life.
"After the first act you are going to have to commit" combined with how DOS2 worked implies that the companions you don't choose will be killed or otherwise turned into antagonists.

Joined: Jan 2021
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Jan 2021
Originally Posted by 1varangian
I'm still missing the more down to earth companions like Eder, Ajantis, Branwen, Kivan, Keldorn, Jaheira, Valygar, Jan or many others from BG1 and 2.

Good writing is much more important than creative or fantastical characters. If you have too many "special" characters it just becomes a weird menagerie where they compete who's the most creative and undermine the story.
Larian does take the stance that the origin characters are all main characters in their own right. That being said I would appreciate some down-to-earth party members as well.

Joined: Oct 2020
T
addict
Offline
addict
T
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by DragonSnooz
Originally Posted by 1varangian
I'm still missing the more down to earth companions like Eder, Ajantis, Branwen, Kivan, Keldorn, Jaheira, Valygar, Jan or many others from BG1 and 2.

Good writing is much more important than creative or fantastical characters. If you have too many "special" characters it just becomes a weird menagerie where they compete who's the most creative and undermine the story.
Larian does take the stance that the origin characters are all main characters in their own right. That being said I would appreciate some down-to-earth party members as well.


To be honest, much as I love Shadowheart, I kinda wish they'd decided to make the origin characters options you could play through but which you wouldn't encounter as possible companions. Let them be full on main characters.

Joined: Oct 2020
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
Joined: Oct 2020
I think the locking down the party size to 4 and possibly killing off(or worse) those origin characters that don't make it in the party after act 1, as was done in DOS2, is a bad way to up the replay value by forcing players to choose what companion related narratives they can experience in a single playthrough.

In DOS2 it didn't work as a motivation to replay the game for me, since I never cared that much about the prospective companions I left out(the lizard and the skeleton were both massive toff douches, so no big regrets to abandoning them).

In BG3, I'd be interested in keeping all the companions around, even if they're rather tiresome bunch at times. Still, if the active party size is locked to just 4, then you'll be missing out on much of their storylines even if they're just lurking around at the campsite. Nor do their comments about the gameplay events make that much sense, since they're nowhere to be seen during the events they later comment on as if they were present.

However, I'm not at all sure if BG3 is actually interesting enough to complete twice, since the big narrative branching choice of the first act seems to be a rather humorless choice on whether or not to join a suicide cult or not. This forced choice, between pretty much every conceivable motivation ranging from good to self-serving pragmatism and plain dumb self-harming shambling, is annoyingly familiar: it's like the choice between aligning with the Shadow thieves and Bodhi's organization in BG2, and the choice between opposing or allying with the voidwoken in DOS2.

Last edited by IdPreferNotTo; 25/07/21 12:56 AM.

The promise of being led to death is reason enough to follow.
Joined: May 2019
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: May 2019
Originally Posted by CJMPinger
I think I made my opinion very clear in other threads. Party Locking would not be good for this game in any way. It would be bad for the plot, how the player feels playing, and for the mechanics.
Ditto.

Joined: Oct 2020
A
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
A
Joined: Oct 2020
Party locking is a bad idea. However, I have no problem with the death,etc of the act 1 companions if if fits the storyline and that other non origin characters can be recruited. Not just mercenaries, but fully fleshed out characters….

Joined: Nov 2020
U
journeyman
OP Online Content
journeyman
U
Joined: Nov 2020
Originally Posted by avahZ Darkwood
Party locking is a bad idea. However, I have no problem with the death,etc of the act 1 companions if if fits the storyline and that other non origin characters can be recruited. Not just mercenaries, but fully fleshed out characters….

Party members leaving because of your choices, that is fine... or even because of there choices (heroic sacrifices are cool for example

Having a "dramatic plot twist" where "all your party dies or becomes mind flayers" and you are stuck with three part members... thats not good

Joined: Oct 2020
A
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
A
Joined: Oct 2020
Agreed

Joined: Aug 2014
1
old hand
Offline
old hand
1
Joined: Aug 2014
Originally Posted by DragonSnooz
Originally Posted by 1varangian
I'm still missing the more down to earth companions like Eder, Ajantis, Branwen, Kivan, Keldorn, Jaheira, Valygar, Jan or many others from BG1 and 2.

Good writing is much more important than creative or fantastical characters. If you have too many "special" characters it just becomes a weird menagerie where they compete who's the most creative and undermine the story.
Larian does take the stance that the origin characters are all main characters in their own right. That being said I would appreciate some down-to-earth party members as well.
You can't have 4 main characters together at the same time. It's like a textbook example of a paradox. Maybe that's the mistake here then.

That said, the cast could work IF we got at least two down to earth ordinary hero or anti-hero characters for companions. With great stories and personalities of course, just nothing as extravagant and incredible as we've already seen. Something more relatable.

Gale's story didn't have to be so far out either. His condition could have been caused by anything magic related and it didn't have to involve gods and planes.

Last edited by 1varangian; 25/07/21 02:27 PM.
Joined: Jul 2014
Location: Italy
veteran
Online Content
veteran
Joined: Jul 2014
Location: Italy
Originally Posted by Riandor
Has there been a categoric "Party Locking means no changing/finding new companions post Act1"?

Or is everyone jumping on this because Larian have previous in DOS2 and stated they want you to choose out of the initial companions which ones to go forward with?
Well, it's more that we've been asking clarifications about that statement since the EA started and we never really got one.
So yeah, a lot of people are defaulting to DOS 2 as reference since it matches to T what they are describing here.


Party control in Baldur's Gate 3 is a complete mess that begs to be addressed. SAY NO TO THE TOILET CHAIN
Joined: Sep 2017
member
Offline
member
Joined: Sep 2017
Originally Posted by Tuco
Originally Posted by Riandor
Has there been a categoric "Party Locking means no changing/finding new companions post Act1"?

Or is everyone jumping on this because Larian have previous in DOS2 and stated they want you to choose out of the initial companions which ones to go forward with?
Well, it's more that we've been asking clarifications about that statement since the EA started and we never really got one.
So yeah, a lot of people are defaulting to DOS 2 as reference since it matches to T what they are describing here.

Larian Confirmed it in Community Update #7. It's what mrfuju3 quoted.

Page 3 of 4 1 2 3 4

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