"Don't worry, mods will fix it" has always been a bullshit "comfort argument", anyway. 1- There's no guarantee it will happen. 2- IF it happens not having full access to game code and dev tools limits strongly how well modders can make it work. 3- It's bound to be a sub-optimal, unpolished experience prone to bugs and UI limitations compared to something that a developer addresses dirctectly.
Also, for the people who were worrying about "having to redo everything from scratch", Swen has been on record openly stating that they already have the UI in place to scale up to six men, they just weren't confident on the idea to make it the default mode (never mentioned before because it's a video interview he made during a streaming that I never watched until few hours ago), so there's that too. Let's hope this amount of feedback in favor of six will serve to give their "confidence" about this a boost.
And if anything, let 4-men party as the default for console players. AS people who never played a CRPG with a good control scheme, they may even be able to appreciate it the most.
I'd like add a forth point 4- It makes devs lazy, why add much requested features and fix bugs and balance the game when the can go "fuck it the modders will do our job for free?"
Originally Posted by Black_Elk
Originally Posted by arion
That topic not about UI but original BG Ui is bad and outdated, I do not miss it at all.
Originally Posted by Black_Elk
and players who are familiar with those games will instantly feel more at home.
they feel more home when they will receive 2d game on infinity engine with the RTwP combat, based on 2e so on...there is no reason to try to please them, they will still be unhappy
Fair enough, though I find that attitude kinda demoralizing lol. It presents returning fans as hopeless curmudgeons who could never be satisfied so why bother, when clearly the functionality already exists and it probably isn't all that hard to implement a party of 6 into the design. I know it's likely meant hyperbolically but still, sort of a burn to lock the 6'ers out of the clubhouse hehe. I get it, but this isn't like an MMO where you need the whole player base to be on the same page for everything in order for it to work. This one has always been SP/Co-Op by design, so if we can make more people happy by providing more options that cater to their wishes what's the real harm? Like why leave that loot on the table when we're still in EA?
There are certain touchstones like the 6-man party that could be used to shore up support and help the ease of use for your returning players, especially when the designers choose to depart from the older games more dramatically in other areas. I only mentioned UI organization because, like party size, it seemed like a similarly low hanging fruit. Why not allow for UI elements to be moved around, like many games do, so that players can change it to suit their tastes? Then we could have a "Modern" UI by default, or a "Classic" alternative that could be quickly toggled from a settings tab. Same deal with party size 1-6, why not let the player make that determination, with difficulty settings to match? I feel like its presented as a zero sum thing when it really needn't be.
I keep trying to imagine if it had gone the other direction, and they went with a party of 8 instead of 4 if I'd still be in here arguing for 6? I suspect not, since in my view a larger party provides way more interest across pretty much every dimension of gameplay (and combat not least) for a game with this playstyle where one player is meant to control the entire party (or half the party I guess in the case of Co-Op).
6 is just better in my view, but clearly I'm a partisan. I'd prefer my side to win the debate hehe
Just for a counter point I feel like maybe I'd get more traction arguing why they should cap the party at 3 rather than 4 members. Just to show the opposing logic in starker relief. I'm sure there are plenty of reasons that might make sense to do this from the average PnP/5e session perspective. The party of 3 has always been more common in PnP than 4, and certainly more common than 6.
But that doesn't really apply to Baldur's Gate, cause BG wasn't like an average session. BG was like one of those epic campaigns, the truly legendary ones, that are hella hard to organize and maintain, just because of how challenging it is to get 6 people and a DM all together in one place and keep it going for months and months on end. On the computer everyone got a chance to experience something sort of like that, with the broad archs and long sweeps, like one imagines went down in basements in the late 70s, when Satan still ruled! lol
It just always stings a bit worse when it feels like something is being taken away. We fixate on it more, and maybe more than we should relative to like when we get a bonus. But that's the way my brain works. Wanting something 'back' is just a different feeling, and I think it would register as a fairly massive win for my contingent of the playerbase if EA feedback resulted in a return to 6. Peeps would say 'hey, looks like they really are taking our feedback to heart!'
But I'll tap out now. I think I've posted more than a few times in this here thread. Batons need passing and I'm zorsted from sleep deprivation playing this game haha.
Great post thank you for the input, I agree that if the party size was 8 instead of 6 I probably would not complain, but that would mostly be because I would have the choice of how many people to take with me, and if I wanted to recreate a classic party setup I enjoyed in the original games I would not be forced to go up to 8 and could limit myself down, I think what a lot of the people who prefer 4 don't realise is we don't want to take away what they like and want we just want the option to have the same as them, a way to play the way we like and want.
Originally Posted by Tuco
Originally Posted by Traycor
and makes playing an Origin almost mandatory to get a full story experience out of the game since custom PCs have no content.
People keep saying this but I honestly don't care that much about playing these origin stories. HAving these characters in party and witnessing their questline? Great. Playing in their role? I don't care. I'd gladly give up on having all these "Origins" playable if it just meant having A LOT more companions.
I will probably try out playing as Gale as he seems pretty cool but otherwise I will probably always play as a custom character because that's what Baldur's Gate and D&D is to me, it's about putting my own character in some amazing and fantastical land, it's about telling my own story and seeing how my character reacts and adapts to the world not trying role play as some pre-created character, they are fine as foils for my guy to react off of but they will never be a main focus and I agree more companions overall would be time better spent over making them all origin characters to play as. As it is I'm hoping for recruitable companions in acts 2 and 3 just how in the original games as you went around the world and found new locations you found new and different people who you could bring along, normally before I start a BG campaign I decide what type of character I want to roll then look up and research a little who I'd like to come along and only recruit them, so sometimes i can spend large portions of the game with only a few companions.