The comments about this decision ranges from "I don't really mind it" to "no way this is stupid as shit".

I honestly don't know what are Larian motives for this decision. While it might have worked for DOS2 because of the competitive nature of the game (the idea that all the main characters are competing each other on a cosmic level) and had the potential to be really great, Larian seriously massed that up. So even if the attempt was a big failure, at least there was a great idea there. Or so I thought.

But it seems like Larian has different motives for this idea of commitment to a party, because they do again for Baldur's Gate. Weather they can find a compelling narrative reason for it remains to be seen, but at least it's clear now that they are doing it because of design philosophy, not because the narrative demands it. And it's very bad news for the story and characters.

It means they are forcing their writers to find ways to make all possible companions unavailable for no good reason other than this vague "commitment" concept.

To be honest this one really pisses me off

Last edited by Abits; 23/07/21 07:37 PM.

Larian's Biggest Oversight, what to do about it, and My personal review of BG3 EA
"74.85% of you stood with the Tieflings, and 25.15% of you sided with Minthara. Good outweighs evil, it seems."