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 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.
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.
