Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - Mega-threads and Guides Party Size Discussion

Like I give a shit about the sales numbers. I'm talking about someone who actually played (and mostly despises) these games while they were launched.
If we were going by popularity contest loads of people would be crazy about Oblvion and Skyrim, but that's not going to stop me from having an abysmal opinion of both.


What are you even talking about? This is not a competitive game. And different players WILLINGLY choosing to control a different amount of units wouldn't affect anyone who isn't interested in doing so.

It's irrelevant. No one would stop them from doing so.

We already went over it a million times even just in this very thread. You could at very least make the bare minimum effort to keep up with the discussion rather than just jump in with the preachy tone and pretend to school everyone about core design.
Yes, I would preferer to have the game tailored from start to finish around my ideal party size, and nothing would stop Larian from having different difficulty settings about that if they wanted (since they already love to implement half a dozen of them in their games) BUT if they weren't willing to that extra mile in terms of effort, then YES, I'd take the native option to play with a party of six even if the game is not "carefully [UN]balanced around that idea", because this ideal quest for "perfect balance" is fucking irrelevant, especially when it gets in the way of enjoyment.

And don't pretend people are asking for it "without understanding the implications" when some of us already tested the concept extensively in practice:




No, I don't, because my option wouldn't prevent them to play however the fuck they may want.

"We made a game in the genre that is mostly liked by the people who usually hate it" wouldn't really be the best of the box quotes.
Here's the thing: you may HATE everything that defines a competent, engaging and complex CRPG, but I don't, so I'm also not so eager to throw in the trash pile any aspect of the genre that doesn't make it closer to Diablo for the sake of mass appeal and praise any trashy attempt to streamline the concept.

He's actually mostly into turn-based games and tabletops, by his own admission, and as he confessed himself only the (wrong) assumption that there wouldn't be a market for them pushed his company to not even consider the option until very recently.

But DOS 2 isn't a better game than BG2, its only advantages over it are pretty much the technical ones (neat 3D engine, better framerate, etc). In basically every other way it's an INFERIOR design with a boatload of downright BORKED mechanics.
A clucky control scheme, a messy inventory management, a disastrously bad armor system (so bad that even Swen Vincke himself had to admit at a a later date it was a disaster and they should have not shipped the game with it), a half-assed perk system on top of an exceedingly steep power curve and one of the worst itemizations I've ever seen in the entire genre.
I even liked the two DOS games to a decent extent, despise all their flaws, but seeing people like you pretending they redefined the entire genre and that their success proves everything about them was flawless is honestly comedy gold.

So yeah, once again I don't really give a shit of your laughably bad prejudice of what's "outdated" and what's a pinnacle of modern CRPGs, I guess?

Said the clueless person.