Larian Banner
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 4 of 53 1 2 3 4 5 6 52 53
Joined: Sep 2017
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Sep 2017
They said the have plans for more in the last pannel from hell.

Joined: Sep 2017
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Sep 2017
Originally Posted by kanisatha
Larian's silence on additional companions is indeed worrisome. Everyone keeps saying there will surely be more, but I'm not sure. And since the vampire spawn and Sharite should be automatic no's for a good-aligned party, party composition is absolutely set for a good-aligned party with no possibility for any choice.


More companions will be added throughout Early Access, so what everyone is saying is correct.

Joined: Aug 2018
D
member
Offline
member
D
Joined: Aug 2018
I believe they said each writer is in charge of the writing for a companion, with one writer having two. So that's 13 companions, I think, if I have my writer count correct. There will also be the ability to recruit mercenaries.

Last edited by DrunkPunk; 24/08/20 10:14 PM.
Joined: Aug 2020
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
Joined: Aug 2020
Originally Posted by _Vic_
If respecting the legacy would give sucess and good sales, The fallout games of Bethesda, the last Final fantasy games or even the GTA games should´ve been failures.

People do not need nor want to play the same games again, unless it´s FIFA or a game that precisely wants to ride on nostalgia.


That's ridiculous literalism and misrepresentation to fabricate a lame false dilemma. Developers can show respect for the legacy of previous games WITHOUT copying a previous games. The Fallout games prove that quite well.
Showing respect for the legacy of a game =/= Copying a previous game

Joined: Aug 2020
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
Joined: Aug 2020
Originally Posted by Bercon
Another viewpoint into this is strengths and weaknesses of your party. If you have 6 members, you will have the right tool for everything in the game. However, if you have only 4 members, there might be some areas where you are lacking, you have weaknesses. This gives you an opportunity to be creative.

No healing? Well perhaps you need to stock lots of health potions, magical items or take another route and avoid taking any damage.

Nobody to search & disarm traps? Perhaps you need to make your tank capable of taking the hits then.

This means more replayability too, because if your first playthrough didn't have any arcane casters, perhaps quests and approaches you take are completely different than if you had one?


That's all well and good until your party takes its first casualty. Then things get a lot worse real fast when the party takes multiple casualties. There were more than a few times that despite massive buffing from both spells and potions that four or five of my characters were down or out of the fight in IWD, BG, and BG2 and the only reason the party survived was because I had six instead of only four. No amount of creativity can completely make up for losing the only character with critical skills and/or abilities. The biggest advantage of having a party of six is being creative with the redundancies in your party so no single loss, and likely not even a loss of two, cripples the party. Losing the pure Cleric or pure Magic User doesn't hurt nearly as bad when the party has a dual class M/C for backup. Losing the pure tank doesn't hurt nearly as bad when there is another Fighter or Paladin or Ranger for backup. Robbing us of a perfectly valid tactical option is just spiteful.

If the traps are that wimpy what is the point of even bothering with traps? Making rogues irrelevant is just spiteful. One of my two favorite characters to run is a rogue as a scout/sniper/pathfinder. So if one of my two favorite character types is unnecessary why should I bother with the game?

Actually, a party of six provides for MORE replayability because a larger party makes more party configurations possible. So that is MORE opportunities to see what works well enough to succeed by trying different party configurations. Then people can try it with five instead of six if they think they've exhausted all of the six party configurations they have an interest in trying.

Joined: Aug 2020
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
Joined: Aug 2020
Originally Posted by _Vic_
And we already told you that they are not using nostalgia as PR or advertise ties with previous games nowhere besides the name. They are not using characters, mechanics, isometric, story, timeline, character and world design or even the same edition of the previous games.

Witch means they want to make their own game.


They WHY the frakk bother with calling it Baldur's Gate 3? If they are essentially making a very different game and then borrowing characters and locations from the Baldur's Gate games so they repackage a different game as BG3 then just be honest about and call it something else. So far this looks like a classic bait and switch con game.

Joined: Aug 2020
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
Joined: Aug 2020
Originally Posted by The Composer
Originally Posted by kanisatha
Larian's silence on additional companions is indeed worrisome. Everyone keeps saying there will surely be more, but I'm not sure. And since the vampire spawn and Sharite should be automatic no's for a good-aligned party, party composition is absolutely set for a good-aligned party with no possibility for any choice.


More companions will be added throughout Early Access, so what everyone is saying is correct.


Having more companions to add to a party of four is still only a party of four instead of six.

Joined: Feb 2020
Location: Belgium
veteran
Online Content
veteran
Joined: Feb 2020
Location: Belgium
3 companions out of 13 is still way less possibilities than 5 out of 13...
I'm not sure it's very complicated to balance the game and create difficulty levels for every companions number.




Joined: Sep 2017
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Sep 2017
Originally Posted by Vlad the Impaler
Originally Posted by _Vic_
And we already told you that they are not using nostalgia as PR or advertise ties with previous games nowhere besides the name. They are not using characters, mechanics, isometric, story, timeline, character and world design or even the same edition of the previous games.

Witch means they want to make their own game.


They WHY the frakk bother with calling it Baldur's Gate 3? If they are essentially making a very different game and then borrowing characters and locations from the Baldur's Gate games so they repackage a different game as BG3 then just be honest about and call it something else. So far this looks like a classic bait and switch con game.

Only for people that actually do not read any of what larian has been said the past 9 months: that they are making his own game and the story and mechanics would be his version of a D&D game.

Joined: Mar 2020
Location: Belfast
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Mar 2020
Location: Belfast
Originally Posted by Vlad the Impaler

They WHY the frakk bother with calling it Baldur's Gate 3? If they are essentially making a very different game and then borrowing characters and locations from the Baldur's Gate games so they repackage a different game as BG3 then just be honest about and call it something else. So far this looks like a classic bait and switch con game.

It what MAKES BG3. What makes Fallout3? Is fallout3, 4, 76 a fallout game?

There was no bait and switch. It was announced that Larian makes BG3 and from that point on if one were in touch with current RPG landscape then one would know what to expect. And gameplay revealed was 100% what I expected plus some stuff that actually peaked my curiosity. Game was never advertised as anything else. Disappointment with what BG3 is purely personal, and while you are free do dislike it, just like I somewhat do, there is no deception nor scam going here. Larian is doing Baldur’s Gate3 just as Bethesda did Fallout3 or Obsidian did Neverwinter Nights2. Larian makes a Larian RPG, Bethesda did a Bethesda RPG, Obsidian did Obsidian RPG.

Joined: May 2019
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: May 2019
Originally Posted by The Composer
Originally Posted by kanisatha
Larian's silence on additional companions is indeed worrisome. Everyone keeps saying there will surely be more, but I'm not sure. And since the vampire spawn and Sharite should be automatic no's for a good-aligned party, party composition is absolutely set for a good-aligned party with no possibility for any choice.


More companions will be added throughout Early Access, so what everyone is saying is correct.

Okay, thanks.
Originally Posted by DrunkPunk
I believe they said each writer is in charge of the writing for a companion, with one writer having two. So that's 13 companions, I think, if I have my writer count correct. There will also be the ability to recruit mercenaries.

If this is correct, that would be good news. With thirteen, I can imagine there will be sufficient options for a good-aligned party to be created including with balance across needed party roles.

But hiring mercenaries is a hard 'no.'

Last edited by kanisatha; 25/08/20 02:24 PM.
Joined: Mar 2013
S
veteran
Offline
veteran
S
Joined: Mar 2013
honestly im kind of afraid there wont be enaugh companions
i dont mind having less than bG1 or 2, but i dont intend to play as any of the companions so id rather have more with a fixed personaltiy rather than 80 different paths each

Right now most of them seem pretty unlikeable

Joined: May 2019
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: May 2019
Originally Posted by Sordak
honestly im kind of afraid there wont be enaugh companions
i dont mind having less than bG1 or 2, but i dont intend to play as any of the companions so id rather have more with a fixed personaltiy rather than 80 different paths each

Right now most of them seem pretty unlikeable

On this I agree with you. I also generally cannot stand the companions revealed thus far, even the non-evil ones. Maybe the githyanki will be tolerable, but still, I would never ever even think of playing as one of the origin characters. And if cutting back on all the reactivity of the origin companions is the price that has to be paid for more companions, I would also be very okay with that. But I think the problem there is that Larian's default expectation is that players SHOULD play as one of their origin characters and NOT as a custom character. So they want to make their origin characters super-attractive to play as, so that players will feel like they're missing out on a lot by not playing as one of the origin characters.

Joined: Nov 2010
B
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
B
Joined: Nov 2010
I don't expect there to be 13 companions to be honest and if you set your expectations that high, prepare to be disappointed. I'd expect 7-8 at best. Sure I'd love to have more, but quality over quantity. Especially with 4 member party, 9 companions would mean at least 3 playthrough to see all of them.

Originally Posted by Vlad the Impaler

That's all well and good until your party takes its first casualty. Then things get a lot worse real fast when the party takes multiple casualties.

If the traps are that wimpy what is the point of even bothering with traps? Making rogues irrelevant is just spiteful. One of my two favorite characters to run is a rogue as a scout/sniper/pathfinder. So if one of my two favorite character types is unnecessary why should I bother with the game?


DnD 5E already has mechanics to reduce lethality in combat with death saves and mechanics. It's also a video game, so if things go bad, that's what quick save & load are for. Plus 5E characters are usually a bit more versatile than 2E, so not having a thief, mage or cleric doesn't cripple you entirely.

Why the hyperbole? Just because stepping into a trap with a tank doesn't instantly annihilate them, doesn't mean they need to be wimpy.


High number of different party configuration or permutations give you an illusion of diversity. Is a game with 120 configurations really more diverse than 252? Are you truly going to play this game through more than 120 times? Do these configuration actually play differently, or is there only couple true differences between them? No Man's Sky has infinite number of planets, does that mean infinite replayability? After 20-30, does the number really matter?

In BG1&2 you pretty much always ran at least 1 cleric, 1 mage, 1 thief, 1 tank. That makes the games play very samey. You have a thief to pick locks and traps 100% of the time. You have cleric to give you the same basic buffs 100% of the time. You have mage to haste you near 100% of the time. You have 1 frontline guy aggroing the enemies 100% of the time. You don't make any real compromises and have no weaknesses.

Joined: Aug 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Aug 2020
I think 6-8 possible companions is a solid number, spread out across various classes. I'd even say that for me it's about the sweet spot I don't think I've ever played a game that gives you as many as 13 party members and while I'm sure that can be good, to me it almost sounds kind of overwhelming. And as far as the number of characters with you in your party, I'd say that while 5-6 would be my ideal purely because it allows for more interaction with your party members and it ensures you'll be able to mix and match your party without too much worry, if the game is balanced for only 4 characters then I'm sure it'll work out fine. The studio knows what it's doing.

Joined: Aug 2014
T
member
Offline
member
T
Joined: Aug 2014
Originally Posted by DrunkPunk
I believe they said each writer is in charge of the writing for a companion, with one writer having two. So that's 13 companions, I think, if I have my writer count correct. There will also be the ability to recruit mercenaries.


Do you remember where you saw this? If they create 13 companions it will be alright.

Joined: May 2019
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: May 2019
Originally Posted by Torque
Originally Posted by DrunkPunk
I believe they said each writer is in charge of the writing for a companion, with one writer having two. So that's 13 companions, I think, if I have my writer count correct. There will also be the ability to recruit mercenaries.


Do you remember where you saw this? If they create 13 companions it will be alright.

Yeah 13 would be nice, but as some others have said, I also doubt we will get that many. And anything less would mean, once you account for alignment and class distributions and personal taste, you will be lucky to find even three companions that you both personally like as well as who work for your party's needs.

Joined: Aug 2018
D
member
Offline
member
D
Joined: Aug 2018
Originally Posted by Torque
Originally Posted by DrunkPunk
I believe they said each writer is in charge of the writing for a companion, with one writer having two. So that's 13 companions, I think, if I have my writer count correct. There will also be the ability to recruit mercenaries.


Do you remember where you saw this? If they create 13 companions it will be alright.


I can't remember off the top of my head, I believe it was one of the discussions and not one of the gameplay streams. I'll see if I can find it when I get home tonight.

Joined: Aug 2020
stranger
OP Offline
stranger
Joined: Aug 2020
On the idea of not needing to appeal to any nostalgia, yet using the BG name... That just doesn't add up, like others said why even call it BG III if it's going to be D&D world DOS:III. If it was going to be just 4 person party AGAIN... I'd actually rather it have been DOS:III and wait to make a BG game like it should be, with six character party and a large number of companions to choose from. You can have your opinion and I can have mine.

And I agree with the idea it doesn't need to follow the same story, in fact a new story is welcome. SOME ties would be cool though. The number of characters and party size is the biggest potential neg to me though as Kanisatha noted as well.

That "blunt" guy takes the "reality" point of view to the extreme. Basically saying whatever sells to the most people is exactly what they are going to and should do and every other game maker can and should do so deal with it. Also ignoring that just because younger people might be more vocal and have more time (including time to play the early access and give feedback) vs the older crowd doesn't automatically translate to who all will actually or would buy the game. And basically if you played the originals that nobody cares about you, you're too old and gaming has passed you by. None of your ideas or feelings nor your cash are relevant anymore. OK. But yeah. Cool guy and cool story. Awesome even. Yeah not really...

If we get 13 that would be very welcome to me. I don't need Suikoden number of characters to choose from but I did like that there was lots of choices in the first two games.

Someone noted in DOS II they didn't feel compelled to add the other 2 characters to their party for another play through just to see their stories and I didn't really either. What WAS fun though was using a mod to have all of them in my party at once so I could do all of their stories and scale up the monsters smile Which wasn't always very easy and would have been cool to have that built into the game from the start as an option. My first play through was with 3 friends so we didn't really get any of the additional characters stories. The 2nd play through was with just my gf and I so we could have all the other characters and hear their stories with the mods. It was a bit wonky and buggy though and would have been a lot nicer if it was just built into the game. We actually encountered a glitch we couldn't resolve and never did finish that 2nd play through.

Multiple other arguments of how additional party members somehow makes the party more predictable, which makes no sense... Like, it just doesn't. Saying that like the one example of having six characters means most people are going to run fighter/cleric/rogue/wizard and that's predictable. YES, it IS. BUT - you get TWO MORE SLOTS. I can't eyeroll hard enough how frustrated this makes me. The painful choice of necessity required however smaller a party is made does not = fun or making things more dynamic. It literally limits what you can do and the combinations possible and thus in reality forces you, unless the battles are cheese which I doubt they are, to have a combat strong party. With no cleric, you'll never even see the strongest priest spells in the game, same with wizard. So I want both. And I NEED a fighter, its hardly an option really. So now I have MAYBE one slot to kind of play around with assuming you were limited to 4. Rogue is the obvious choice here and sure, maybe I can pick a lock with my wizard by giving them the right background, but I don't WANT to pick locks with my wizard. I want to pick locks with my rogue. And then maybe take a bard along or a druid, etc. I guess I hear the words of those who think 4 person party is better but why would 6 person party be a bad thing at the very least as an option!? And I guess I'm also similarly surprised at the number of people who are totally OK with there being a tiny handful of potential companions. Like people that are ok with just 5. What if you hate 3 of them!? LOL. Shadowheart seems like a cool character (I absolutely hate Shar, she's almost as bad as entropy itself) but if given the choice I'd take the opposite priest of Selune any day along with war or healing domain. Anyway, I guess the whole less is more argument just doesn't add up to me. Why not more with the option for less.

Maybe I'll be pleasantly surprised with the option for six but I feel like its unlikely unless enough people throw their respective two cents in the wishing well. I do feel though that it's entirely likely that there are an unexpected large number of people out there that bought the 1st and 2nd BG that might not even know that BG III exists or is a thing yet, but would or will buy it, eventually. Just because there are very vocal people sometimes creating an echo chamber of feedback that doesn't necessarily mean that everyone who would potentially buy the game is in that chamber voicing their opinion. I'm one of those people that almost never is.

And just to add it one more time. Yes the game can and should be different and that's good, and I'm ok with the tactical and not real time, but pretty much every other game of the iconic isometric D&D games was 6 character party. Please Larian, don't change that.

Last edited by Aeridyne; 26/08/20 05:49 AM.
Joined: Feb 2020
Location: Belgium
veteran
Online Content
veteran
Joined: Feb 2020
Location: Belgium
The best solution about companions is to have 5-6 origin character and many more usual companions, that are just companions as in the old BG. Only one quest and they come with you for any reasons.

I don't really care that the companions quest line is 4-5 steps if the quest is interresting and take a few hours to play (BG2).

Origin characters are designed to be the main character (that's the concept). Every companions don't need that. Quality companions doesn't mean origin characters...

Page 4 of 53 1 2 3 4 5 6 52 53

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