In table top D&D people wouldn't suddenly start having a different character for similar reasons.
Except for the pesky detail that this is a video game and NOT tabletop.
People talking about how they didn't switch parties much in BG I or II (and like most of you I was the same except when a quest required someone specific) have a point, but I'm not sure the comparison is completely apt - here we have a 4 person party, not 6, and in BG I and II there were multiple companions available to fill any role. You could build a team that you could stick with for the duration. It remains to be seen how true this will be here. I know I'm going to spend EA doing a "no rogue run" and "no cleric run" just to see how painful an experience each is.
Yes, I do not at all buy the argument about 5e classes being flexible and everyone can do anything. D&D is about classes, and classes are meaningful only if they have mutually exclusive elements. The whole point of a party-based game is that each party member brings something special or unique to the party. If every party member can do anything, there is no point to the game being party-based. This also then means that, as circumstances warrant it, you would change your party composition to suit the needs of the moment. Furthermore, the smaller party size only exacerbates this issue. It is easier to stick with the same party for the whole game when the party size is bigger, i.e. six. But with the ridiculously small party size of four, it is that much more of a concern that we cannot alter our party composition at will. The way I see this playing out is that I will have to settle for either a party with companions who I like but who make up a terrible, weak team in terms of the party roles they can cover, or else a party with companions who I hate but who I was forced to include to ensure I had good party roles coverage. And either way, that would be a very poor way to have to play the game.
