I have yet to read someone who doesn't.
I'm here. And I wrote that long ago. With how companions are ussually implemented we have 3 options:
1. They all have something to do while they're not in the party. And it's mentioned and effectivly shown in the game.
2. They have nothing to do or it's not effectivly shown, so they seem to be lazy asses, while we are "saving the day".
3. They are either with us either dead/left us/became antagonists. DOS2 option.
So I'm seeing the option 2 as the worst, option 1 as good but not suitable for every plot, and option 3 as good and suitable for every plot possible. Yes, from game-mechanics perspective it can be painfull, but from the narration point of view it's some what cheap and effective way to make companions always seem actual participants of our adventure instead of assortment of fighting units.
Or... they could ( if not in the active party) tell us - I have my own things to do, if you want to see me go there and there, tchuss.
Or be angry at you if you kicked them from the party while they sacrificed something really important to them for you and leave the country.
Or become the antagonist if you leave them be after discovering something about the enemy . Something they can use.
The list of possibilities is quite long regardless of how the map ( the environment in which they operate) looks. This " commit to companions " thing comes mostly ( after me) from their map design. You're switching maps without coming back to them, every map is a different story line/ stage for every character and in that regard making companions " permanent" in the world makes little sense. Hard to judge based on BG3 since we don't know how they will make the whole world map thing work but if they're going for the DOS2 map design ( looks like they are) then indeed I don't see any point of making a separate place on the map to fit in all companions not currently in your party. You could do it but it would be super strange.
Mostly cause the playing area is effectively way smaller since you drop all older locations and they would be ununaturaly close to each other.
Try to fit all companions in the game somewhere in DOS2 ( admitting the PC party is 100% full custom non-origin characters) on each map without making the map bigger and without creating an " Companion Inn " where all of them are sitting. Let's say 3 of them can be there.
Admitting the red prince is NOT in your party from the start of the game :
1) You can find him at the beach in fort joy.
2) 2nd act: You can find him close to the place where he is suposed to find his love.
3) You can find him at the palace in 3rd act ( he decides not to go after god's powers fairly easily).
Ifan would have to go as an antagonist anyways if left alone after me.
Losa?
1) First act the camp
2) 2nd act: Bridge to the island were she tries to find the truth about herself.
3) Demon's house where she falls under his influence since you left her to herself.
Etc etc.
It could be interesting to some extent. Personally I would prefer for it to work exactly as described above. Let them make their own decisions if you're not here to influence them.
It could impact the replayability though since you could discover each character's quest in random orders and have the feeling " I already seen the end, not worth it seeing the start".
Maps could feel a bit "crowded" with companions waiting for you every few steps.
BG3 has the same problem. They want to have 8-ish companions I heard? ( One of sven interviews I think, can't link to source). Transpose what I wrote above to the current BG3 map with 8 characters on it.
=============================================================================================================================================
OR
Make it work as BG2 characters quests worked in term of interactivity with you and the world. Companions were only pretending not to be AFK while they weren't in your party. They effectively were totally waiting for you to move onward with the quest state.
Nalia could :
1) Join your party
2) Ask you to help her defend her castle against the invading army.
3) If you spent too much time before going there, she would tell you it has been a few days now and she can't wait more. She will go help her familly alone.
4) She would leave the party and do that.
5) Once you finally arrived....she was waiting at the doorstep ^^ You could " clear" the castle alone or with her. One step more would be to straight up have the game kill her. You left her alone, she died in the attempt to save the castle on her own. Action == Consequence.
But for this you needd ONE MAP instead of a couple of them. One map solves the " seeing the start of the quest" problem which seems to drive Larian's decisions regarding this particular aspect.
You can't " FIT " all of what i described above with Nalia's quest in a Larian map. Like it would be literally a huge chunk of the map. It has to be a quest on it's own and the character eventually is there with you.
================================================================
BG3 act II should let you comeback at the druid grove. It gives quest designers so much more SPACE. SPACE they need to write quests. And fit companions. Hopefully a shit load of companions.
