Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - General Having all companions as "origins" is a poor idea

Title is pretty self explanatory, so I'll keep things short: here's my two main reasons why.

1- A party-based game of this sort trying to go for an "epic adventure" vibe is going to need a vast cast of characters to work. You want to give the player SOME freedom to compose his active party in different ways across more than one playthrough.
And let's face it, if you are going to build every companion as also an origin story the cost of each would balloon considerably.
To be honest, I'd be pretty annoyed to hear something like "We have just 6-7 companions in the entire game because making each one of them a playable origin story makes them far more expensive and time consuming". Well, then just don't?


2- I really don't like the idea of being spoiled about ALL the possible companions in the game two minutes into the character creation menu. I'd love for the game to surprise me opening the chance for more story-related companions down the line.

I hope so badly that they add atleast like 2 companions that are not origins so we can learn about them.

Having them at character creation basically telling you their story is...just meh? Like yeah the case can be made for "just don't look", but it's literally right there. It should not even be there. There is no intrigue with those characters when you know who they really are or their "issues".

That's an interesting concern. Maybe they can add an option in the settings not to reveal any origin stories and allow only custom characters creation for those who don't want spoilers.

I agree, this is really something that bothers me the most. Especially I don't see any benefit in that. Why I should be able to play every character and why I should be able to see every possible companion during character creation? I really don't see any reason for this concept.

I see that new players maybe need some help and therefore a preconstructed character. But isn't it the point of companions that yo have to handle new surprising characters youre not able to play? There was never a wish to play as a companion. Kotor, dragon age, baldurs Gate - It was always my character + interesting other characters. And the surprise when you find them and realazise that they want to join is also pretty good.

That all companions are origin characters also includes that they are all available at the beginning and also, that they are all infected by the mindflayers.
This time it's not the boat where you first talk to all, it will be the mindflayers spaceship.

I also don't understand why they're sticking to that concept, especially when it was also in DOS not a loved concept. There were some serious downsides n out to play as a origin character

If you can modify their stats I will go all "Origin".

I don't really care about having exactly one specific race that is most OP as my fighter/rogue etc. I will just pick the "Origin" for that class and have more story.
Then if the game is really good I can do a second play-through with some strange combo like 4 self generated druids or 4 Barbarians.

If "Origins" have trash stats and I can't modify them then that's a different thing ofc.

That's nice and all, CyberianK, but that's not AT ALL what this thread is about.
We aren't talking metagaming and numbers. And we aren't talking about what to play as main character either.

This is about the roster of companions available for hire during the game.
Actual companions, as characters with a defined personality that play a role in the story, not that mercenary stuff the AMA mentioned yesterday.

I agree, there should be companions that we meet along the way back to Baldur's Gate that does not have the option to play as Origin characters. Unless there is a good reason why everyone has a tadpole, as the main character has in their head. We should be able to meet companions without tadpoles in their heads.

And if every companion has a tadpole in their head does that mean the mercenaries have tadpoles in their head like the main character?

I really don't want to meet 15-30 companions in the starter area. I want it to feel like a journey as it did in BG1 and BG2 when meeting these characters.

still think the origin character idea is bad
but eh, they seem to be set on this

It is extremely problematic to have all the companions be an origin characters. It didn't work well in DOS 2 and there is no reason to believe it will work well in BG3.

The so called origins are the top notch definition of this, which makes it hard to follow the argument tbh.

This was the thing I find really odd about having origins in BG3 I mean the hole point of BG games is that you make your own character not playing as someone else

Are we sure that every companions will be origins characters ?
Speaking about real "well written" companions, not mercenaries.

I'm not so fan of these origins characters but I can admit that some of them can be played as "the main character"... Why not...
But of course I agree it couldn't be the only choices to build a team, for the reasons explained in the thread...

It is perfectly fine to create and play your own character. No losses
Playing them is a possibility that is added on top of that, not instead.

I don't think every companion will be a origin character I mean lets say we are getting Minsc in BG3 his level will be to high to play right from the start of the game

Well I am still planning on buying BG3 I just find it odd that there would do something like this in a BG game

In fact it seems like you aren't following it at all.

This is not a thread against the existence of "Origin characters". Not even close.
This is an argument against the idea (hinted with the AMA yesterday) that they are supposed to be ALL the companions in the game.

OK for me there wasn't a difference between companions and Origins seeing as they want to give all non-Mercs a backstory.. Maybe they should just stop using the word Origin. Sounds too much like Divinity Original Sin anyway.

How about a super fresh idea like:
"Party" of "Adventurers"


Companions is also good of course. I am certainly open to the idea and hope that we get others that will join the party who aren't available in the character generation screen. But having party limited to 4 also restricts that a lot. The good old "guest" slot might be great but then why not make that slot accessible by default?

Is it about something in between a full blown origin and a bland mercenary, with the emphasis on 'meet along the journey'?

I'm not sure why we are pretending I'm talking some alien language here.
I'm speaking of "proper companions". Mercenaries can go fuck themselves and overdose in a public restroom, for all I care.

So no, I'm not talking about "something midway". And yes, these "Origin Stories" still qualifies as proper companions.
The only difference between an Origin Story and a more traditional companion is supposed to be the fact that you can play as the former, so it comes with all the additional costs of having to implement all his dialogues, story vignettes etc from a player perspective.

The argument being discussed here is: "the game should also have companions that are not part of the handful of Origin Stories showed to you at the start up"-
Especially because if these, what, six-to-eight character are all BG3 is going to offer in terms of companions, that would be pretty fucking disappointing?

The problem here is that asking "There should be at least 16-18 origin stories" is NOT reasonable, because that would cost a shitload of money (beside coming with its own set of issues, like still being spoiled from the get go about ALL the characters in the game).
So we ask for the next best thing: "Save the money to make them 'Origin Characters' and jut give us more companions in general".

To repeat your own advice, just don't do that then.

(You can avoid any spoilers in character creation by not looking at them)