Larian Banner: Baldur's Gate Patch 9
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 5 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6
Joined: Sep 2020
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Sep 2020
Originally Posted by Tuco
I have yet to read someone who doesn't.
I'm here. And I wrote that long ago. With how companions are ussually implemented we have 3 options:
1. They all have something to do while they're not in the party. And it's mentioned and effectivly shown in the game.
2. They have nothing to do or it's not effectivly shown, so they seem to be lazy asses, while we are "saving the day".
3. They are either with us either dead/left us/became antagonists. DOS2 option.

So I'm seeing the option 2 as the worst, option 1 as good but not suitable for every plot, and option 3 as good and suitable for every plot possible. Yes, from game-mechanics perspective it can be painfull, but from the narration point of view it's some what cheap and effective way to make companions always seem actual participants of our adventure instead of assortment of fighting units.

Joined: Apr 2021
Location: Australia
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Apr 2021
Location: Australia
Originally Posted by Zellin
Originally Posted by Tuco
I have yet to read someone who doesn't.
I'm here. And I wrote that long ago. With how companions are ussually implemented we have 3 options:
1. They all have something to do while they're not in the party. And it's mentioned and effectivly shown in the game.
2. They have nothing to do or it's not effectivly shown, so they seem to be lazy asses, while we are "saving the day".
3. They are either with us either dead/left us/became antagonists. DOS2 option.

So I'm seeing the option 2 as the worst, option 1 as good but not suitable for every plot, and option 3 as good and suitable for every plot possible. Yes, from game-mechanics perspective it can be painfull, but from the narration point of view it's some what cheap and effective way to make companions always seem actual participants of our adventure instead of assortment of fighting units.

Nope... Option 3 with them being dead is just cheap. Not effective narratively in my humble opinion. frown
I get very attached to my RPG companions and would rather they had something to do while not in my party, or if they die or leave, it should be because of the player's CHOICES having consequences. Not because of an arbitrary gate where the chosen party goes through and the rest just drop dead for no reason.

Joined: Dec 2020
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Dec 2020
Originally Posted by Zellin
Originally Posted by Tuco
I have yet to read someone who doesn't.
I'm here. And I wrote that long ago. With how companions are ussually implemented we have 3 options:
1. They all have something to do while they're not in the party. And it's mentioned and effectivly shown in the game.
2. They have nothing to do or it's not effectivly shown, so they seem to be lazy asses, while we are "saving the day".
3. They are either with us either dead/left us/became antagonists. DOS2 option.

So I'm seeing the option 2 as the worst, option 1 as good but not suitable for every plot, and option 3 as good and suitable for every plot possible. Yes, from game-mechanics perspective it can be painfull, but from the narration point of view it's some what cheap and effective way to make companions always seem actual participants of our adventure instead of assortment of fighting units.

so with your logic, every time you meet a new companion if you have 4 already, one person must always just either leave/die/become an enemy? That's makes narrative sense to you?

Joined: Sep 2020
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Sep 2020
Originally Posted by Boblawblah
so with your logic, every time you meet a new companion if you have 4 already, one person must always just either leave/die/become an enemy? That's makes narrative sense to you?
No with my logic a companion's presence among recruited should be justified. And it can be justified for a while with the fact that we've just recruited him and didn't yet find what to do with him. But after some point it's option 1 or option 3, but please, not option 2.
Originally Posted by Alexandrite
Nope... Option 3 with them being dead is just cheap. Not effective narratively in my humble opinion. frown
I get very attached to my RPG companions and would rather they had something to do while not in my party, or if they die or leave, it should be because of the player's CHOICES having consequences. Not because of an arbitrary gate where the chosen party goes through and the rest just drop dead for no reason.
Sorry, but are you arguing that's not effective just with just your feelings? Implementation can be better, yes. But effectiveness lies in different part here - hoever you make them leave you can be sure no one will ask "why they are doing nothing?"

Joined: Oct 2020
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by virion
Originally Posted by CJMPinger
Originally Posted by virion
Originally Posted by TheAscendent
At the end of Act 1, are we stuck with the four companions we choose for the rest of the game like in Divinity Original Sin 2

Yes. According to their discord.

According to their FAQ too, but it is something I hate.

Same^^ Strange choice, never understood it.

Well thats incredibly disappointing.
In BG2 not only you had 15+ companions (not counting the incredible MOD companions; there are dozens. Something BG3 will probably never be able to achieve due to cinematic dialogue limitation. Even DOS2, doesn't have a SINGLE new MODDED-in companion.) , some of them came mid-game / end-game. And you can easily mix/match whoever whenever.

Last edited by mr_planescapist; 03/07/21 12:26 AM.
Joined: Oct 2020
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Zellin
Originally Posted by Tuco
I have yet to read someone who doesn't.
I'm here. And I wrote that long ago. With how companions are ussually implemented we have 3 options:
1. They all have something to do while they're not in the party. And it's mentioned and effectivly shown in the game.
2. They have nothing to do or it's not effectivly shown, so they seem to be lazy asses, while we are "saving the day".
3. They are either with us either dead/left us/became antagonists. DOS2 option.

So I'm seeing the option 2 as the worst, option 1 as good but not suitable for every plot, and option 3 as good and suitable for every plot possible. Yes, from game-mechanics perspective it can be painfull, but from the narration point of view it's some what cheap and effective way to make companions always seem actual participants of our adventure instead of assortment of fighting units.

Or... they could ( if not in the active party) tell us - I have my own things to do, if you want to see me go there and there, tchuss.
Or be angry at you if you kicked them from the party while they sacrificed something really important to them for you and leave the country.
Or become the antagonist if you leave them be after discovering something about the enemy . Something they can use.

The list of possibilities is quite long regardless of how the map ( the environment in which they operate) looks. This " commit to companions " thing comes mostly ( after me) from their map design. You're switching maps without coming back to them, every map is a different story line/ stage for every character and in that regard making companions " permanent" in the world makes little sense. Hard to judge based on BG3 since we don't know how they will make the whole world map thing work but if they're going for the DOS2 map design ( looks like they are) then indeed I don't see any point of making a separate place on the map to fit in all companions not currently in your party. You could do it but it would be super strange.

Mostly cause the playing area is effectively way smaller since you drop all older locations and they would be ununaturaly close to each other.

Try to fit all companions in the game somewhere in DOS2 ( admitting the PC party is 100% full custom non-origin characters) on each map without making the map bigger and without creating an " Companion Inn " where all of them are sitting. Let's say 3 of them can be there.
Admitting the red prince is NOT in your party from the start of the game :
1) You can find him at the beach in fort joy.
2) 2nd act: You can find him close to the place where he is suposed to find his love.
3) You can find him at the palace in 3rd act ( he decides not to go after god's powers fairly easily).

Ifan would have to go as an antagonist anyways if left alone after me.

Losa?
1) First act the camp
2) 2nd act: Bridge to the island were she tries to find the truth about herself.
3) Demon's house where she falls under his influence since you left her to herself.

Etc etc.

It could be interesting to some extent. Personally I would prefer for it to work exactly as described above. Let them make their own decisions if you're not here to influence them.
It could impact the replayability though since you could discover each character's quest in random orders and have the feeling " I already seen the end, not worth it seeing the start".
Maps could feel a bit "crowded" with companions waiting for you every few steps.


BG3 has the same problem. They want to have 8-ish companions I heard? ( One of sven interviews I think, can't link to source). Transpose what I wrote above to the current BG3 map with 8 characters on it.

=============================================================================================================================================

OR

Make it work as BG2 characters quests worked in term of interactivity with you and the world. Companions were only pretending not to be AFK while they weren't in your party. They effectively were totally waiting for you to move onward with the quest state.

Nalia could :
1) Join your party
2) Ask you to help her defend her castle against the invading army.
3) If you spent too much time before going there, she would tell you it has been a few days now and she can't wait more. She will go help her familly alone.
4) She would leave the party and do that.
5) Once you finally arrived....she was waiting at the doorstep ^^ You could " clear" the castle alone or with her. One step more would be to straight up have the game kill her. You left her alone, she died in the attempt to save the castle on her own. Action == Consequence.


But for this you needd ONE MAP instead of a couple of them. One map solves the " seeing the start of the quest" problem which seems to drive Larian's decisions regarding this particular aspect.

You can't " FIT " all of what i described above with Nalia's quest in a Larian map. Like it would be literally a huge chunk of the map. It has to be a quest on it's own and the character eventually is there with you.

================================================================
BG3 act II should let you comeback at the druid grove. It gives quest designers so much more SPACE. SPACE they need to write quests. And fit companions. Hopefully a shit load of companions.

Last edited by virion; 03/07/21 12:27 AM.

Alt+ left click in the inventory on an item while the camp stash is opened transfers the item there. Make it a reality.
Joined: Oct 2020
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Oct 2020
GIAGANTIC SPOILER. SCREENSHOT FROM END OF THE GAME.


[Linked Image from baldursgate3.wiki.fextralife.com]

WHY. Why did they tease this map, this beautiful map with little locations you can go back and forth on for different quests if it's never gonna happen? Like I have no idea if it won't but all the stars are alligning to confirm it won't. They even said they are *probably* going for ACT 1,2 etc structure.

For those who don't know it's a direct "wink wink " at the BG2 map.

[Linked Image from mikesrpgcenter.com]

One is a rectangle. The other one is a square. I will let you figure out why.


Last edited by virion; 03/07/21 12:35 AM.

Alt+ left click in the inventory on an item while the camp stash is opened transfers the item there. Make it a reality.
Joined: Jul 2014
Location: Italy
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Jul 2014
Location: Italy
Originally Posted by Zellin
I'm here.
I guess there's always at least one.

EDIT- Fine, I'll elaborate a bit.

For the record I think your argument/line of reasoning is terrible, bordering into "atrocious non-sequitur" territory.
Having an extended cast of characters rotating to fill the spots in your party in no way needs to imply that the ones you are not carrying around full time spent all their waking hours masturbating behind a rock in blissful negligence and without a care in the world.
There are plenty of ways to make use of inactive party members, both mechanically or at the bare minimum making up some fancy excuse about how they are spending their time for the sake of the mission.

Also, it seems pretty bloody obvious that any pretense of "immediate urgency" will be shelfed pretty soon, as we move past Act 1.

Last edited by Tuco; 03/07/21 12:49 AM.

Party control in Baldur's Gate 3 is a complete mess that begs to be addressed. SAY NO TO THE TOILET CHAIN
Joined: Apr 2021
Location: Australia
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Apr 2021
Location: Australia
Originally Posted by Zellin
Originally Posted by Alexandrite
Nope... Option 3 with them being dead is just cheap. Not effective narratively in my humble opinion. frown
I get very attached to my RPG companions and would rather they had something to do while not in my party, or if they die or leave, it should be because of the player's CHOICES having consequences. Not because of an arbitrary gate where the chosen party goes through and the rest just drop dead for no reason.

Sorry, but are you arguing that's not effective just with just your feelings? Implementation can be better, yes. But effectiveness lies in different part here - hoever you make them leave you can be sure no one will ask "why they are doing nothing?"

I argued that it's not narratively effective because companions leaving/dying should be dependent on player choices, not passing some arbitrary point in the game.

Wyll and sometimes Gale (depending on roll result) leaving the group because of player's evil path choices = makes sense in the overall narrative. "Why are they doing nothing?" isn't a question that comes up in this scenario.

Small group of 4 going to Moonrise Towers, meanwhile everybody back at camp suddenly drops dead because The Will of Larian says so? Doesn't make sense, unless they have a really, really damn good story explanation for that!

My feelings factored in, yes, but they will match others on this forum. I'm probably a typical, average casual gamer who mainly plays RPGs for the story and companions.

Last edited by Alexandrite; 03/07/21 12:45 AM.
Joined: Oct 2020
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Tuco
Originally Posted by Zellin
I'm here.
EDIT- Fine, I'll elaborate a bit.


Having an extended cast of characters rotating to fill the spots in your party in no way needs to imply that the ones you are not carrying around full time spent all their waking hours masturbating behind a rock

LOL. Pretty much this. But there's definitely place for improvements in this area regardless if we look at BG2 or DOS2 or...actually any other RPG I've played.


Alt+ left click in the inventory on an item while the camp stash is opened transfers the item there. Make it a reality.
Joined: Sep 2020
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Sep 2020
I'm really not getting why you both @Tuco and @virion are dropping on me elaborated Option 1, which I listed myself as a good one. Like really? If I wasn't clear enough: I do not hate Larian version, because there is worse like what I listed as Option 2. Do I see it as a perfection? No, but that's still better than a furniture-like companions from some other games.

Joined: Dec 2020
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Dec 2020
They could easily solve the 'sitting in a bush jacking off' problem by just having a simple comment of "we're going to look into a few other leads, scout for danger, etc, we'll meet up back at camp." Let's not pretend this is Larian trying to make narrative sense, because you can easily say "why the hell wouldn't you accept the help of a fifth person?" then. "Uh, well, you see, narratively..." this is Larian following the DOS2 playbook.

Last edited by Boblawblah; 03/07/21 02:29 AM.
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Liberec
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Liberec
Originally Posted by virion
Originally Posted by TheAscendent
At the end of Act 1, are we stuck with the four companions we choose for the rest of the game like in Divinity Original Sin 2
Yes. According to their discord.
As far as i know, all confrimmed information was the sentence abou the fact that we would have to commit at end of Act 1 ...
I know there was many theories (or more likely many repeats of the same theory) about it, but no matter how often people around here repeat that "this will be for sure just the same as it was in DoS" it dont makes it any more true, its still just fan-made theory. O_o

All im trying to say is:
We dont know what will happen ...

- Maybe we will stuck with 3 companions we have in party, just like it was in DOS-2
(wich i would find unlikely, at least for that reason that Larian would have to be deaf, blind, stupid, ignorant and even more stupid ... for not noticing how badly people dont want such scenario. laugh )
- Maybe we have to choose single Origin character, wich story will lead us to Act II.
(my favourite one ... you know something like "ok, we done it ... what now?" ... also, this was a little teased by Shadowheart, when you ask her what would she do after she get rid of that tadpole ... her answer is: "we go our separate ways ofcourse" wink )
- Maybe our group will split into two (or more?) parties that dont work together wery well, and we will have to choose wich we want to stick with.
(the most obvious duo is Shadowheart and Lae'zel ... but i would like to remind you that we still dont have all Origin companions inplemented, so we have no idea wich would also have "problem" with others wink )
- And finaly ... maybe something entirely different. laugh laugh laugh

Originally Posted by Zellin
I'm here. And I wrote that long ago. With how companions are ussually implemented we have 3 options:
1. They all have something to do while they're not in the party. And it's mentioned and effectivly shown in the game.
2. They have nothing to do or it's not effectivly shown, so they seem to be lazy asses, while we are "saving the day".
3. They are either with us either dead/left us/became antagonists. DOS2 option.

So I'm seeing the option 2 as the worst, option 1 as good but not suitable for every plot, and option 3 as good and suitable for every plot possible. Yes, from game-mechanics perspective it can be painfull, but from the narration point of view it's some what cheap and effective way to make companions always seem actual participants of our adventure instead of assortment of fighting units.
+1

Originally Posted by Alexandrite
Wyll and sometimes Gale (depending on roll result) leaving the group because of player's evil path choices = makes sense in the overall narrative. "Why are they doing nothing?" isn't a question that comes up in this scenario.
Rly?
I never managed to repel Gale by evil choices ... he allways leaved me bcs i refused to feed him with magical items. laugh

Originally Posted by Alexandrite
Small group of 4 going to Moonrise Towers, meanwhile everybody back at camp suddenly drops dead because The Will of Larian says so? Doesn't make sense, unless they have a really, really damn good story explanation for that!
Like:
"When your group arive Moonrise Towers, you can overhear conversation about their scouts finaly ended searching for Nautiloid crash survivors ... then, your game is paused ... camera returns to camp, and your party is switched to control of all companions you left there ... you are fighting against endless spawn of enemies until last one of your party drop dead ... then camera returns to your curent party ... and your game continues."

Honestly i would kinda like it. :P
But talkative skeleton is kinda negating that option. :-/

They can still knock them out, instead of killing them ... and drag them to Moonrise Tower as hostages (wink, wink, Larian!) so your whole party is present for future events. :3

And i would like to remind to anyone who will find such scenario as unprobable ... that Swen specificly told us in one old Interview, that our camp will play significant role in the story. wink


If my comments bother you, there is nothing easier than telling me to stop.
I mean ... I won't ... but it's easy to say. wink
Joined: Jul 2014
Location: Italy
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Jul 2014
Location: Italy
Originally Posted by Zellin
I'm really not getting why you both @Tuco and @virion are dropping on me elaborated Option 1, which I listed myself as a good one. Like really? If I wasn't clear enough: I do not hate Larian version, because there is worse like what I listed as Option 2. Do I see it as a perfection? No, but that's still better than a furniture-like companions from some other games.
The main point is that your very concern that "Point 2 is bad enough that I'd rather not get extra companions at all" is not agreeable in the slightest, as far as I'm concerned.

In fact, it sounds ridiculous to me to even worry about something so trivial and at the same time easy to address/handwave, over its FAR larger implications in terms of gameplay/mechanics.

And I even felt a little dubious about it, Ragnarok giving you a +1 works pretty much as a kiss of death, anyway.

Last edited by Tuco; 03/07/21 10:30 AM.

Party control in Baldur's Gate 3 is a complete mess that begs to be addressed. SAY NO TO THE TOILET CHAIN
Joined: Nov 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Nov 2020
I think Mass Effect and Dragon Age as series handled the problem of what companions do when you aren't with them. They occupy their own place in the hub and do what they need to or like to do.

The entire Mass Effect series companions serve a role in your crew:
In ME Tali is presiding over the engine of the ship.
In ME2 Garrus is always calibrating weapons.
In ME3 Liara is
||operating the shadow broker network.||

In DA:O they sit around camp but are relaxing, like Oghren drinks.
In DA2 they actually occupy their homes, like Anders is running a clinic.
In DA:I they all occupy parts of Skyhold and act as your inner circle, like Iron Bull rests in the bar and commands his mercenaries.

Bioware figured out in those games to give companions more natural activities, and they do range from contributing to the group to sitting around and relaxing. So I feel if Larian wanted they could give each companion a camp role or something to do, even if that something is staving their own boredom.

Last edited by CJMPinger; 03/07/21 02:31 PM.
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Liberec
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Liberec
Originally Posted by CJMPinger
In DA:I they sit around camp but are relaxing, like Oghren drinks.
I believe you mean DA:O ... but what i wanted to ask is: Is that any different from BG:3? O_o
I mean, in last patch i believe Gale is usualy reading something (it would look better if he had something to sit imho), so i Astarion, IF you give him that book, wich would interests him.


If my comments bother you, there is nothing easier than telling me to stop.
I mean ... I won't ... but it's easy to say. wink
Joined: Nov 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Nov 2020
Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD
Originally Posted by CJMPinger
In DA:I they sit around camp but are relaxing, like Oghren drinks.
I believe you mean DA:O ... but what i wanted to ask is: Is that any different from BG:3? O_o
I mean, in last patch i believe Gale is usualy reading something (it would look better if he had something to sit imho), so i Astarion, IF you give him that book, wich would interests him.

Fixed it, meant origins.
And it is very close but does have some minor differences, in particular with Origins the layout feels very different that the companions despite being in a camp feel like they are actually occupying this camp.
Furthermore, purely cause of how events were handled, DA:O's camp felt more alive with companions having events and interactions, cause it wasn't just sleeping as the flag.
So while they are very similar, the feel is pretty different. Personally though DA:I and ME do it much better. Sure they still stand around in a place, but they feel like they have their role in the group and even customize their space to themselves a little.

Joined: Jul 2014
Location: Italy
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Jul 2014
Location: Italy
I don't have many good things to say about Dragon Age Inquisition, but admittedly the way they handled base-management/companion interaction when in it was one of its strongest points.

A shame the same couldn't be said about how they structured companions' quests, on the other hand. Grindy, boring and with that soulless vibe of "offline MMO" that characterized most of the game, really.

Last edited by Tuco; 03/07/21 12:33 PM.

Party control in Baldur's Gate 3 is a complete mess that begs to be addressed. SAY NO TO THE TOILET CHAIN
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Liberec
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Liberec
Originally Posted by CJMPinger
And it is very close but does have some minor differences, in particular with Origins the layout feels very different that the companions despite being in a camp feel like they are actually occupying this camp.
Furthermore, purely cause of how events were handled, DA:O's camp felt more alive with companions having events and interactions, cause it wasn't just sleeping as the flag.
I allways kinda hated (even tho its a little too strong word), that all events are happening just when you click your companions ...
Swen (sorry, Sten laugh ) was standing 10m away from your dog, and when you clicked on dog, he teleported and kneel before him. :-/

I hope if Larian will implement such interaction, we would see it before conversation start. :-/


If my comments bother you, there is nothing easier than telling me to stop.
I mean ... I won't ... but it's easy to say. wink
Joined: Sep 2020
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Sep 2020
Originally Posted by CJMPinger
In ME Tali is presiding over the engine of the ship.
In ME2 Garrus is always calibrating weapons.
In ME3 Liara is ||operating the shadow broker network.||

In DA:O they sit around camp but are relaxing, like Oghren drinks.
In DA2 they actually occupy their homes, like Anders is running a clinic.
In DA:I they all occupy parts of Skyhold and act as your inner circle, like Iron Bull rests in the bar and commands his mercenaries.
It's kind of fun coincidence, but I keep DA:O and ME1 in mind as examples for Option 2. Yeah, companions in this games are performing some animations and occupying a place of their own, but that's all.
Same Tali in ME isn't actually performing as an engineer, we have our engineering staff without her, she just brings a bit of her quarian insight to them. That gives her some personality, but not life.
DA:O is even worse. Companions there do not have much to do even on screen, and off-screen they are practically do not exist.
When I'm talking about alive not lazy companions I do not mean companions, who have their spot in our base of operations, perform some animations there and then tell me from time to time that they talked to someone. I mean companions more like in ME:A (yeah, bad game, but it pretty much nailed this) who change space around them, spread around friendly settlements when we come there, leave some traces of their off-screen life, have tasks and projects of their own, interact with each other on regular basis.

Page 5 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6

Moderated by  Dom_Larian, Freddo, vometia 

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