First, I would say that I hope I don't come across as angry. After all, we're arguing about video games of all things. But there were a lot of questions I had earlier in the thread that remain unanswered.
To address one argument - that people should play through multiple times - I feel that this argument is dismissive and unrealistic. Many players, myself included, tend to get a little burnt out after one playthrough and don't feel like picking up a game immediately afterwards. Expecting players to play through your game multiple times so they can have the experience they wish is unfair and unrealistic. It places an unrealistic expectation on the player, and frankly totally misses and sidesteps the major points that many of us are making. I do understand that a really large game that has so many choices will inevitably lead to people missing content, and I'm ok and supportive of that sort of thing. I simply don't understand why that should apply to character and party choice, when having party choice and conflict was such an essential part of the original games. To sum up: I'm not looking for the perfect playthrough. I'm looking for a satisfying one.
I'm one of the people who made that point, so I'd like to address it. My stance was never to start a second playthrough immediately afterwards and I never put a timeframe on that. Some people will do that, but I imagine that most will probably play something else for a while and then come back with fresh eyes in a few weeks, or even months. Using Divinity: Original Sin 2 as an example, I've logged something like 370+ hours in the game over the course of 6 playthroughs. There were still conversations, locations, items, and encounters that I had never seen before in my final playthrough. I didn't feel cheated because the game was too big, and I didn't scold myself that I had somehow managed to miss these things. I took it as a testament to the quality and depth of the game. I feel as though the same mentality should apply here.
I didn't personally see anyone say that they felt like it was unfair that they didn't get the fabled "perfect playthrough" the first time around because there was just too much content, so I'm wondering why that argument applies now in a similar situation. You feel as though you'd be unsatisfied with a mildly limited party, but much like in D:OS2, a majority of people are going to feel satisfied with it. The only burden you face is adjusting your expectations back down to a realistic level because Baldur's Gate 3 isn't going to be a 1TB game that allows you to do everything that you've ever imagined in an RPG. There
have to be design limitations.
Another argument I would make is that limiting character choice after a single act totally misinterprets and changes the way characters have always worked in the BG series. In those games you could lose your important, essential characters late in the game, forcing you to either make due or change your party. This, to me, goes to the heart of what a previous poster said - I totally agree that forcing a player to make choices is essential and a good thing for a game and an experience. It makes everything heavier and more meaningful. But currently what we see is that the major character/party decision is made potentially only once: at the end of act 1. In the original games these heavy choices were made *frequently* with every dialog and moral decision that you would make. These were hard decisions, and they happened a lot.
I've mentioned in a different thread that I sometimes enjoy playing evil characters. In the BG games, my choices were sometimes strongly influenced by who was in my party. By choosing to do the evil thing, I sometimes ran the risk of pissing off Minsc, for example. And if this happened late in the game then I was doubly careful and aware of where we stood together in a group. So how did I make these decisions? In short, I roleplayed. I used "head canon" with my character and justified it in character realistically, thereby giving greater depth to the character I was playing instead of playing a cartoonish villian who did whatever he wanted, consequences be damned. The consequences were very real from a player's perspective. I could, of course, replace Minsc if necessary. The game allowed for that by letting Minsc walk away if needed and by giving me extra choices late in game. They might not have been my first choice but.. is that not the nature of in-game decision making? The way I understand things, I can be an evil dick in the later acts and my good friends will simply stick around. And if they won't - will I be allowed to replace them? Based on what little we've heard I would guess no. Currently, this is unknown and I am totally open to being corrected on my initial suspicions.
Ultimately, what Larian is implying is that players really must make one decision, or a culmination of smaller decisions, that pays off at the end of act 1. And that's it. There's nothing else, no further decisions to be made about party makeup later in the game, and absolutely no serious character v character conflicts that occur after the 1st act (don't forget how characters could clash in the original games). To me, this is not a choice. This is railroading. And it certainly isn't BG.
Although I can appreciate nostalgia, things have a tendency to change after 20 years. I really don't think that Larian is going to shove some arbitrary reason in your face that dismisses the importance of the party splitting up, and I'm willing to bet that there's likely a key plot point that wasn't just shoehorned in that makes perfect sense as to why those people wouldn't be tagging along. I'm confused, as you don't seem to mind the idea of party members leaving, even very late into the game. So it's not so much about not having them available, it's about wanting it to be a decision that you're not obligated to make when the plot calls for it? On this point, I'd just say wait and see how the story pans out.
One thing I will add that is in agreement with what has been said previously. I do think that smaller parties with less potential mixing of personalities tends to lead to greater in-depth character interactions. Planescape was a great example of this, for instance.
This statement is confusing. You don't necessarily want a party size to be limited and you don't want to make a hard call about who's going to continue on that adventure with you, but you recognize the value of a more intimate group? I can't tell from this comment if you're just willing to deal with whatever they decide to do, or if a smaller party size justified by an intense narrative shift is a dealbreaker for you.
