|
|
|
veteran
|
veteran
Joined: Oct 2020
|
If they take that down to one companion's quest in Baldur's Gate III, yet the companion quests aren't very long, and they revolve around the same main quests without greatly affecting them, then it would be even worse. I gues that depends on how will that be done. O_o I mean, if you pick Minthara all she alterns in curent gameplay is that she adds single (even tho quite big and long) battle (against druids) ... and potentialy second one, that is conciderably shorter (in camp). And that was single character ... it revoled around same main quest ... but it affected game outcome a lot. And i cant say i was ever dissapointed by option to pick this side. It's possible, but even if the Moonrise Towers is the place where the parasites are removed, I doubt that you'll have to choose one companion.
The reason that both paths pointed that way might be because the party split where you'll likely have to choose which party members to save will probably happen there. Well, we can allways agree to disagree here.  At least one of us (maybe even both) is probably wrong, that should be certain ... one day we find out wich one. But until then seems acceptable to me to simply state that we expect different outcome.  In Original Sin II... ...the collar issue did end before the second act, but the companions' quests didn't affect the story as greatly as you're saying the quests of the companions would in Baldur's Gate III. Yup ... heard that before. And i hope (read as presume) that Larian learned their lesson. You know the main reason why i believe in this much involvement of our companions in story, is the fact that they are all "Origin characters" and we will be able to experience whole story through their eyes. Therefore i believe they will have major role in future story. What they said was just a different way of saying that the party would be permanent after the first act. I understand it can be seen that way ... I hope you understand that it can also be seen other way. :P I skip the rest, bcs i dont like reasoning for someone else, so ... cant quite react on that one.
I still dont understand why cant we change Race for our hirelings.  Lets us play Githyanki as racist as they trully are!
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Mar 2020
|
I didnt play any D:OS ... and just for the record im not even planning it, those game dont feel appealing to me in any way. Not sure what you mean by this ... So, if you wanted to get Fighter to your group bcs it needed Fighter, you had to get rid of someone permanently? Why is that a problem? I mean, if your group desperately need a Fighter, but have no use for Rogue, why would you need to keep the Rogue around? O_o I suspect as much. So trust me, Larian is reusing/expanding many of ideas/structures they established in D:OS2 - pretty much like post Bioware games build on what they established in BGs. That's why so many people complained that BG3 feels more like D:OS3, then BG3. So D:OS2:
In D:OS2, like in BG3, you can play the game as any of the companions. Throughout the first act you meet and get a chance to try out any of companions that aren't your origin character. You would need all companions as fellow prisoners on the ship, and you would get scattered after the ship is attacked. You wake up on the beach and can find all the companions scattered around the opening zone. There was no camp, so companions that you won't take will stay on the world map, and they will "progress" through the story on their own.
So you have an entire act1 to get a feel for you party. Game doesn't pull any punches so you will probably figure out if your party has issues When you complete act1 you sail out on the ship out of the opening areas, and all the origins join you there for story reasons (you are all sourcerers/have tadpoles and Godwaken/True souls).
Then the connective tissue between act1&2 starts. You are on the ship, and your party is removed. You can find all companions scattered around the ship and you build the final team. Once you are done, the ship is attacked, and all spare companions don't get to survive. You reappear at the end of Act3, where you fight for godhood and they get to compete against you - somehow. It doesn't make sense, but then rarely things do in D:OS2.
Gameplay wise, D:OS2 is classless, so anyone can be anyone really - when recruiting companions you get to choose their "class". With the ship comes the mirror, which allows for changing the apperance of your character, as well to respec them into anything you want. You also can recruit merceneneries if you wish so. Never tried that, but I assume you can leave one of your buddies on the ship and take mercenery instead. How interesting it is then, that in BG3 Larian expands what individual class can do beyond their PnP counterparts - just as if they wanted for any party you build to serve you well.
Companions have their quests that they want you to do, most of them tie into events/factions you will be dealing during crit path. I more or less expect something similar to happen in BG3 - Shadowheart's artefact and mission is pretty clearly tied to the story (with the artifact being transfer to you, so it will be critical, even if Shadowheart won't be around). Laez's kin also seem to be on whatever is happening (and likely tied to Shadowheart's artefact - maybe only one can survive prologue?). Wyll is tied to hell, which is part of the core story, Tiefling is tied to hells. Don't know about Vampire, but I bet his master will be of some importance too.
Last edited by Wormerine; 25/10/21 06:23 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
member
|
|
member
Joined: Oct 2021
|
If they take that down to one companion's quest in Baldur's Gate III, yet the companion quests aren't very long, and they revolve around the same main quests without greatly affecting them, then it would be even worse. I gues that depends on how will that be done. O_o I mean, if you pick Minthara all she alterns in curent gameplay is that she adds single (even tho quite big and long) battle (against druids) ... and potentialy second one, that is conciderably shorter (in camp). And that was single character ... it revoled around same main quest ... but it affected game outcome a lot. And i cant say i was ever dissapointed by option to pick this side. That was for a decision in the main quest, and it wasn't very complex. In Original Sin II... ...the collar issue did end before the second act, but the companions' quests didn't affect the story as greatly as you're saying the quests of the companions would in Baldur's Gate III. Yup ... heard that before. And i hope (read as presume) that Larian learned their lesson. You know the main reason why i believe in this much involvement of our companions in story, is the fact that they are all "Origin characters" and we will be able to experience whole story through their eyes. Therefore i believe they will have major role in future story.[/spoiler] The companions were all Origin characters in Original Sin II as well.
Considering that Baldur's Gate III seems to have had the same structure so far, I really doubt that it'll be different and better, though it'd be good if it was. What they said was just a different way of saying that the party would be permanent after the first act. I understand it can be seen that way ... I hope you understand that it can also be seen other way. :P I skip the rest, bcs i dont like reasoning for someone else, so ... cant quite react on that one. It's not vague at all, so there isn't really room for interpretation. The question asked if you would be able to change party members, and the answer was that you can, but then you can't after the first act.
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Dec 2020
|
It's not vague at all, so there isn't really room for interpretation.
The question asked if you would be able to change party members, and the answer was that you can, but then you can't after the first act. Maybe we're missing something because I can't see how it could be taken any other way as well, but who knows, apparently up can be down if you really don't want it to be up. this topic appears to be a black hole though, so I'm going to bow out here and keep my sanity
|
|
|
|
|
|
member
|
|
member
Joined: Oct 2021
|
It's not vague at all, so there isn't really room for interpretation.
The question asked if you would be able to change party members, and the answer was that you can, but then you can't after the first act. Maybe we're missing something because I can't see how it could be taken any other way as well, but who knows, apparently up can be down if you really don't want it to be up. this topic appears to be a black hole though, so I'm going to bow out here and keep my sanity Yeah, I don't want it to work like that either, but that is what the FAQ says. There's really no point in trying to interpret it differently, when that won't make the game change.
|
|
|
|
|
|
journeyman
|
|
journeyman
Joined: Oct 2021
|
That makes no sense. Its an easy cope out. The same thing they did in D:OS2
|
|
|
|
|
|
addict
|
|
addict
Joined: Jun 2020
|
I’m not bothered either way - the replayability factor in this game is massive
|
|
|
|
|
|
journeyman
|
|
journeyman
Joined: Aug 2021
|
I'm not a fan of the permanent party, since I can't really see a reason in favor of it. Is it to improve replayability? Is it because it would make reactivity too hard to script? I don't really get it; it didn't make sense in DOS2 either.
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Jun 2020
|
I personally do not count having to replay 60-80% of the exact same content, over and again, just to see the extra little bits that might be different, but won't ultimately change anything outside of their self-contained elements, to be legitimate replay value.
|
|
|
|
|
|
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Dec 2020
|
I personally do not count having to replay 60-80% of the exact same content, over and again, just to see the extra little bits that might be different, but won't ultimately change anything outside of their self-contained elements, to be legitimate replay value. Pretty much this. People have limited time, and most people will only have the time to play through a game once before something else catches their eye. Knowing this, one would think that effort would be much better spent on making that sole playthrough experience as magical as possible, right? People who really want to replay a game will find reasons to do so through, say, multiplayer or a different class, and not really because of that one character's side story that you missed. A focus on 'replay value' enforced by locking parts of the narrative and gameplay options away without much of anything to make up for that loss is honestly one of my most hated trends in gaming as of late. There are rare exceptions like WotR, in which that game specifically revolves around the concept of different paths and more importantly entirely through choices made by the player character. Compared to something as haphazard as DOS2 doing something as major as taking away half your party for... Reasons ultimately way out of your control, only really enforced through an arbitrary party limit, and now BG3 may be threatening to embark on that same path again. The best examples of replay value that exist in the gaming industry is enforced by giving players increased options with compelling reasons to pick and choose, not just taking them away. I have to say, that decision in DOS2 in the early phases of the game ultimately did lead to the final act being as poorly received as it was. Having the entire party there to resolve all of their plot threads one by one would have made the pacing of that act seem a lot better. But with half of that personal investment in the various arcs being wrapped up in that act not existing due to half the playable cast being dead by that point, people were right to describe that act as a confusing disjointed slog instead. I actually recently did a playthrough of DOS2 with a mod that allowed me to have all party members survive the end of act 1, and it's amazing what a difference it makes in improving the overall story.
Last edited by Saito Hikari; 26/10/21 10:57 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Oct 2020
|
I don't think it will eventually work out.
This worked in a classless environment, but it won't work well for fairly restrictive classes.
It is very unlikely that Larian will allow you to change the companion class selected on the first level, which means that even respecialisation will be very limited.
Another thing is that Larian certainly realizes that something like this would be quite unpopular (like in DoS2), so if they decided to completely change most of the dialogue in the game based on player feedback, it is unlikely that they would not do so either. Especially since it is much less problematic to change.
|
|
|
|
|
|
journeyman
|
|
journeyman
Joined: Jun 2021
|
I don't think it will eventually work out.
This worked in a classless environment, but it won't work well for fairly restrictive classes.
It is very unlikely that Larian will allow you to change the companion class selected on the first level, which means that even respecialisation will be very limited.
Another thing is that Larian certainly realizes that something like this would be quite unpopular (like in DoS2), so if they decided to completely change most of the dialogue in the game based on player feedback, it is unlikely that they would not do so either. Especially since it is much less problematic to change. If they were to throw all the current dialogue out of the window, expect to count another few years up to development xD. I don't think people want that, either. We will see what they do with the game in the end. It is a fine balance they have to walk, in either catering too much to players wishes and compromising their own artistic vision for the story. Overall I think giving agency to playerbase feedback certainly is a good thing, but doing it too much either adjusting to feedback or not listening to feedback, makes the gameplay portion meh (which I saw in a fair number of survival games lol) or just alienating the playerbase too much. in short, I'm fine with things getting locked down after act one, even if it goes against the OG series formula. I am just giving them a a chance to make the game they want, while still listening too feedback and adjusting it where they reasonably can. I don't think totally rewriting the companions, at this stage of development, would be beneficial to us as players. Unless you guys want to wait until 2025 to finally play this game xD. If I gauge the steam forum is kinda on the verge of: where is MAH GAME REEEE!!!!! YOU SCAMMARZ and: I KNEW LARIAN WOULD FAIL AT BG3 xP. I just really hope they manage to give us a bit more build versatility than OG baldursgate did in some ways. Having all classes and races would go a long ways to at least give us more options. I personally dont see replayvalue on the companionside, more on the level of branching of the story. I mean... BG one enhanced has a lot of companions, but some I rarely ever use. I mean Xsar and montaron I always ditch in Nashkel lol. So giving BG3 let's say 20 companions to choose from might look good on paper. But I personally doubt that will make me come back to the game beyond a certain point. Because in pretty much any RPG, the companions effect on the whole story arc (outside of the protaganist) is abysmally small.
Last edited by Kimuriel; 26/10/21 09:24 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
enthusiast
|
|
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2020
|
Not a fan of the perma-party idea if it means the non chosen NPC's become inaccessible. I think the best solution would be to go the BG1 and 2 route, namely that some companions needs to be recruited when you meet them or you need to complete their specific requirements or quests otherwise you risk permanently losing them, others can simply be ordered to leave the current party and then simply 'go live their lives' meaning you can find them at an appropriate location (e.g. Astarion in his house in BG, SHadowheart in a Shar/Selune temple or crypt, Lazael somewhere outside of the BG city walls near a gith encampment in the woods, etc etc).
I think they could pull it of in theory, but I think they wont succeed in writing a convincing narrative that makes it feel and flow naturally instead of some narrative deus-ex machina trick which feels gamey in the sense of 'at the end of the tutorial you need to chose your definite party but instead of a menu they made a cinematic out of it'. However, I fear that we're too far into writing and development to change course as it seems one of those stupid things Larian somehow keeps holding on to without good reasons. An in between would be to at least not completely remove the non-chosen NPC's from the game/story-line, like at least give them a cameo at a later point in the game (as antagonists or even as friendly 'non party' NPC's like wyll when you first meet him at the grove fight) and don't let them die permanently...
Last edited by SerraSerra; 26/10/21 09:20 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Oct 2020
|
I don't think it will eventually work out.
This worked in a classless environment, but it won't work well for fairly restrictive classes.
It is very unlikely that Larian will allow you to change the companion class selected on the first level, which means that even respecialisation will be very limited.
Another thing is that Larian certainly realizes that something like this would be quite unpopular (like in DoS2), so if they decided to completely change most of the dialogue in the game based on player feedback, it is unlikely that they would not do so either. Especially since it is much less problematic to change. If they were to throw all the current dialogue out of the window, expect to count another few years up to development xD. I don't think people want that, either. We will see what they do with the game in the end. It is a fine balance they have to walk, in either catering too much to players wishes and compromising their own artistic vision for the story. Overall I think giving agency to playerbase feedback certainly is a good thing, but doing it too much either adjusting to feedback or not listening to feedback, makes the gameplay portion meh (which I saw in a fair number of survival games lol) or just alienating the playerbase too much. in short, I'm fine with things getting locked down after act one, even if it goes against the OG series formula. I am just giving them a a chance to make the game they want, while still listening too feedback and adjusting it where they reasonably can. I don't think totally rewriting the companions, at this stage of development, would be beneficial to us as players. Unless you guys want to wait until 2025 to finally play this game xD. They did it a long time ago. Originally, all of the main character's dialogues were in the past tense. If they wanted to do something like that, not blocking the party after act 1 is not a problem. Eventually, some declaration from Larian would be useful. Rather, it has been established a long time ago.
|
|
|
|
|
|
journeyman
|
|
journeyman
Joined: Jun 2021
|
fair enough I guess, lol didn't expect you to reply so fast . was still adjusting my comment. But yeah.. I would like to see a rpg where companions have a bigger role to play in the story at large. And I doubt that will be the case in BG3 either. Beyond shadowhearts'artifect jobbo I suppose.
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Oct 2020
|
It's not vague at all, so there isn't really room for interpretation.
The question asked if you would be able to change party members, and the answer was that you can, but then you can't after the first act. Well i cant make you to see it obviously ... But i see it. :P
I still dont understand why cant we change Race for our hirelings. Lets us play Githyanki as racist as they trully are!
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Mar 2020
|
I'm not a fan of the permanent party, since I can't really see a reason in favor of it. Eh, it depends what they do with it. In D:OS2 post-mortem Sven said that companions in D:OS2 were sort of added at the very last minute. They might have reasons for killing off companions which they never got to explore in D:OS2. I tend to stick to one party in RPGs anyway - sure I will switch them to do companion quests, but I feel I don’t really get to know them unless they will spend majority in time in the party. In that regard I preferred BG1&2 approach where there wasn’t any “party campâ€. People where in your party or they weren’t. On the other hand,I always found Obsidian’s party conflict like at the end of NWN1 or PoE2 interested concept that never got really explored. If companions just get killed that would be lame - but if they end up staying in the story “maybe some will take Rafael on his offer, or become Absolute minions†things - this could be interesting. So my question would be not what locking party removes from the player, but what it adds. If, like in D:OS2, all it does is remove companion quests - then it’s rather pointless.
|
|
|
|
|
|
enthusiast
|
|
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2020
|
I get that having a full roster of high powered adventurers sitting around camp-keeping due to artificial party sizes is a common issue in RPGs, and I don't think forcing the players to commit to a party is necessarily bad. However, it really depends on how it's implemented.
If "commitment" leads to the people not in the party conveniently being erased from the story by a plot meteor swarm just so it enforces "replayability", then I would really prefer Larian just leaving them as mindless slaves in my camp that I bring into the party occasionally to do their related quest (i.e. like in most other RPGs).
If "commitment" serves a deeper purpose to create immersion - i.e. implemented in a smart, reactive way to really liven up the world, then I'm all down for it. For example - say you don't commit to Shadowheart. Instead of just being erased from the story, Shadowheart now continues on her own quest/goals, and later on, becomes a proper NPC either in a Shar related quest or if you ever visit the stronghold. Depending on your previous approval level, she might be straight-out hostile, a reluctant frenemy - or even an ally or can re-join your party temporarily (maybe after some convincing and apologizing). I.e. give them the Witcher 3 treatment and make them NPCs that are deeply integrated with the plot where appropriate. This - I'm all down for.
But here's to hoping.
|
|
|
|
|
|
member
|
|
member
Joined: Apr 2021
|
Not sure we've seen the end of the tadpole discussion either. So far in EA, only Astarion wants to control the tadpole. Gale definitely sees power in it as well.
But the choice might actually be "keep it or lose it" and different characters will follow different paths. Astarion definitely likes his newfound abilities, and there might be more of that with other origin characters.
|
|
|
|
|
|
journeyman
|
|
journeyman
Joined: Jun 2021
|
I personally think it will either come down to a as EvilVik says.. a) person wishes the power of the tadpole (and if reputation with tav = neutral to low) = turning hostile and/or joins absolute or b) people with low approval getting taken over by the will of the absolute, sort of like the absolute tries to do until shadowheart uses the artifact to block her/it out. We will have to see. I doubt the characters will just die out by default, but I assume some sort of loyalty check could be programmed in. Some characters are very hard to please of you are good aligned anyway. Such as Astarion and Lae'zel lol. I never seem to end up with her higher than medium approval . doesn't mean I turn her back on her all the time though as her turning you down dialogue suggests xD. I just dont have a Gith worldview
|
|
|
|
|
