there is also a lack of companion AI when they are not all player controlled ( SP and short-handed MP groups )
Why would they need AI? In turn based combat that would significantly drop the tactics available if companion characters acted on their own, and outside combat the only things suitable to automate would be selling wares, or offering to lockpick a door the lead character selects but can not open, etc.
I do actually mean the combat. Why would I want to spend a huge amount of time baby-sitting a whole party of characters and their summons/pets through combat, rather than mainly role-playing MY character? Clearly, it should be *POSSIBLE* to control all party characters/summons/pets individually if that is what a player wants, but it should not be *MANDATORY*. If the monsters have combat AI, then so can party characters/summons/pets, even if this means you need to have an additional "simple-combat" mode.
I suppose it depends exactly what game Larian are making, and who they want/expect to buy it?
Obviously D:OS2 players who are also TT DnD players are very positive in the forums. What we have seen so far would provide a good experience for them, and they are busy in other threads discussing detailed character builds for optimum tactics, drawing on what is probably ~1000 pages (?) of 5e information.
But what about someone that likes playing single-player RPG video games, but that is not a "DnD nerd". Is everyone expected to go and read and understand hundreds of pages of 5e, just to be able to get through the combat, which may not be why they want to play the game?
If BG3 really is only for the existing Larian/DnD multiplayer hard-core, then there is no need to think about anyone else; but if the audience is intended to be wider, it might be wise to consider some quality-of-life settings that allow the game to satisfy other playstyles.
The chain system also has no concept of group arrangement or follow/separation distance between linked members
D:OS 1 has a selection of party formations and in D:OS 2 that was expanded to allow a custom configuration where you could position specific characters within a grid of 17 slots, in addition to the list of formations.
I didn't remember the D:OS1 formations, so I went back to look, and eventually noticed the decoration at the top of the party chain UI was actually a selection button; I did not notice that while playing. It sounds like D:OS2 also had an ability to distance characters with the grid? ( I didn't get on with the first game, so I passed on the second ). If so that's good.
As I said, I think the chain / party split are good ideas, but not the best implementation. The drag/drop seemed to be unpredictable, and I found it unhelpful that I had to move the mouse from the centre of the screen to fiddle with the portraits on the side, just to select a single character to move. Other posters to the thread have made similar observations; there are better ways to use a mouse for control.
As I had cause to open up D:OS to check on the UI, I'll make a final observation ( below ) about lack of in-game information - with the suggestion that it is improved for BG3, please.
On opening D:OS1 you are presented with ways to start the game, and some configuration options; no README, no FAQ, no Manual. The only place from the start screen that I could find that gave any useful game information was the key-binding options that give an idea of what you can do. In-game, the information was limited to short tutorial tips, which barely told you anything, and load-screen tips, which were never up for long enough to read. Even when I went looking and found the official manual, the information in it seemed sparse ( for example, it explained how to drag/drop portraits in the chain UI, but not that you could use party formations ).
These comments are intended to be constructive, so please take them that way. I would like BG3 to be a game I want to play, and that many others will want to play. It would be a shame if it sold well, but was critically panned for not meeting expectations.
