i appreciate the response my dude, and i do want to say that my earlier post didnt mean to single you out but instead to speak to some of the larger themes ive seen in ppls counterarguments to the base 6person party size (while still allowing for ppl to do solo and 4man runs using their 6 'party slots' - like how you can currently still do solo runs despite the 4party limit), so my apologies for that - but, respectfully i pretty much disagree or have issues with every position you made in your response lol
Originally Posted by DZs7
Will expand my thinking. You assumption is that party of 6 should be standard, because of few reasons:
* Because previous games were like that. Indeed they were, but why we should we really stick with it? Both of this games are now archaic and are long closed story. I'm fan of both previous Baldur's Gate games, but being honest here. Without sentimental aspect Baldur's Gate 1 is just good game with average story and it didn't pass the test of time. Baldur's Gate 2 looks much better in this aspect, but still it's a relic of the past. I won't go with all this seems like Divinity 3/ Divinity: Baldur's Gate talk- not only, because it isn't related to the topic at all, but also if someone remembers how many placeholders from DoS1 were in the EA for DoS2 then there is just no point to speak about it at this stage of game/EA. So I don't really see why we should hold argument like this at all.
* Without party of 6 some players will be alienated. Yes, maybe- maybe not. However, same will happen if they will change it to party of 6. Some people would say that now it's too much of party management, too chaotic or something else. Also if they will change it once then another group will rise saying something like make it party of 8 or party of 10, because system/game/universe XYZ haves it that way. Yes your argument here is valid, but same goes for any other party size. Also like you said that party of 4 being way to go is debatable, well same goes for party of 6 being consider fix for primary gameplay mechanic- it's debatable. No matter what someone won't like the final outcome.
* Is game really made around party of 4? Yes and overall fight balance is lesser concern here. We talking about things like story, narration, dialogue system and other mayor mechanics and aspects of the game. This project is huge already which is reflected in pure numbers and statistics (at least compared to theirs previous game). In the end changing it would consume set amount of manpower to once again please just one group of people in the end.
Another things why should they stick with party of 4 is overall vision for the game. They had something in mind and it's one of the core/ground rules/aspects for game like this. It's kind of like asking devs of Pathfinder to make game around party of 4 for various valid reasons. Sometimes creators just must go with things that thought will be the best for theirs game.
Valid solution would be adding another play mode with party of 6 and maybe things like Active Pause mode in Enhanced Edition sometime after the premiere. This game really needs valid polish and improvements, so there is just no time and it's unnecessary to try please everyone with very personal taste based things now.
this is all mainly related to the 6 v 4 person party debate:
-bc the previous bg games were like this - ya and this is supposed to be bg3, but i do agree that the bhaalspawn plot should be tossed
-bc the previous bg games are 'dated' and were just good or are currently looked at thru rose colored glasses - i just think this is plain false given that baldurs gate is credited with reviving the genre, has universal 4/5 or 9/10 star reviews, and is the standard which many like games are now compared to and from which many of the games since have drawn inspiration. bg was 'the' computer dnd game and was so good that now 20 years later they are still selling copies of the game (which as an aside speaks to the overall lack of 'new' or innovation in the gaming industry given all of the new definitive/enhanced/next gen rereleases of older games) and to be frank, i think the hype for this game had more to do with the title being bg3 than having larian as the developer. i understand that was adnd rules tho so i can be sympathetic to the issues in adapting 5e, but i didnt anticipate such a drastic departure in some aspects and could do with more 5e rules/mechanics in some of these areas (surfaces, food, elevation, etc.)
-i actually dont think theres enough innovation from dos2 in this game for it to get a new number, so i agree the dos3 talk is premature, but i think dos2: bg is valid given the merging of the game mechanics, origin v custom characters, shared limited party size, dos2 party and camera control, and dos2 like narrative weve got so far (ie shared plot/narrative with our companions with tadpoles in this instance, possible limited companion choice after the first act, act maps, even being a survivor on a beach) - but i agree also with what you said about this being ea so alot of things are subject to change so all we can really do is just theorycraft at this point
-without a party of 6 some players will be alienated - yes. thats it. you argue that the same will happen for ppl who prefer 4 over 6 - i agree that some ppl may, but i dont think this is correlated as you suggest. with having a party of 6, players can still opt in to just running a party with 4 members - you still have choice. by limiting party size to 4 you dont even have the option in the base game to have 6 companions. and if its too much party management, or chaotic, or 'something else' for a player, they can still opt to just run 4 and avoid such a hassle that 6 members may present.
-if they change it will ppl ask for them to increase it further? - maybe, thats true. i agree at some point that you would need to limit party size, but your rationale that xyz system or game has it doesnt carry much water if you ask me, as the xyz we should be caring about here is the og bg games (id like more allusions to the forgotten realms too just as an aside) which had up to 6members and shares the same name as this game. im actually having some difficulty thinking of any similar rpg game that has party dynamics that has 8-10 party members? any suggestions - being serious, actually sounds fun to play, lol
-i agree with your overall point that whats best for 4v6 is up for debate/interpretation/personal preference - but what i am arguing for and asking that larian implements is the option for you to still play with a party of 4 while allowing for a party of up to 6 so we both as players can win and enjoy the game, while those in the pro4 party seem to be advocating against players being able to have that option and thereby artificially limiting our choices/options. when framed this way, not considering costs/resources/etc. which is another facet of this question, i dont really think its up for debate. larian should implement up to 6 party members - can they and will they are two different questions.
-your next two points around if the game is really made around a party of 4 and their overall vision for the game - i think this is a larger discussion about what larians vision for the game was when they first began development to where it is now that they are receiving feedback from the community, so i guess my response to that is that i just disagree with what their vision for this game should be in regards to this specific party size topic as alot of other ppl have also voiced in the forum and this is purposefully the opportunity to give feedback in the hope that larian considers as they work to create the game? and i would say that the group of ppl in the pro6 or unaligned and dont care is the larger segment of the bg community and again this change wouldnt take away your ability to run4. regarding what the scope of such an overhaul may be in terms of resources, and larian isnt some small indie developer, idk if i have a lot of sympathy for that rationale, especially considering the numbers they just got from the ea. i am also skeptical about how 'difficult' implementing two additional characters to your party would be (frankly, i also think the game could do with more interparty interactions and companion input during dialogue encounters) or if it would really imbalance encounters (which is another topic) and again, it just comes off as empty rationalizing.
-i dont really care about the devs for pathfinder since we are talking dnd 5e here, but relating to creators sticking with their vision for a game thru to launch - for every one you can find im sure you could also find a multiple more that either made changes based on feedback and were better for it or didnt make changes and didnt make it. constructive feedback can only work to improve a game (or anything really) and saying things like 'sometimes creators just must go with things that thought will be the best for theirs game.' isnt in any way productive or meaningful feedback
-what you said about a valid solution being multiple game modes i agree with, and you also mention RTwP (which, lol oddly enough as someone who really enjoyed the og bg games im against as i think turnbased fits 5e and dnd better), but then you state that the game needs real polish and theres no time and its unnecessary to try to please everyone so lets wait and hope to get these in enhanced editions - i think that mentality sets such a low bar for larian and the expectations for what should be the re-invigoration of what has long been considered a flagship franchise in the genre, so i just dont prescribe to it.
to wrap, ill just say that i have been enjoying my experience playing this game in ea - for the most part it sounds like the majority of us all are, but i disagree with some of the changes in game design from the predecessors to larians iteration and havent really found any concrete or substantive reasoning as to why larians way of doing it is better