One additional argument for the party: they said that the companions will react not only to what you say to them, but to what you do in the world. With this concept, it would be impossible, say, to keep Neera and Edwin in the same camp, or Edwin and Dynaheir. In other words, you can't have bloodthirsty killers and saint clerics in one camp and hope to deal with everything using your diplomacy.
I always felt myself a bit crazy when in Dragon Age games I talked in one way with Solas and then changed my opinions COMPLETELY when I approached Vivienne. Or Zevran and Wynn.
It always felt unnatural and very artificial. Now, when we know not all companions will be able to stay in your party after Act 1 in BG3, this sounds understandable to me, from this point of view: imagine a paladin. She won't be ok to stay in the same party that kills on sight.
But this wouldn't necessarily happen because for me, as someone who exclusively plays strongly good, I myself wouldn't keep those bloodthirsty killers around. So the problem as I see it is not in the game, but rather in how you chose to play your game. And how can you complain about how you chose to play your game?
kanisatha has a point. If you were playing a Good character, would you REALLY keep a bloodthirsty killer or a evil priest in your camp? If so, to what end? Are you looking to try and redeem them somehow? (If so, then shouldn't you be bringing them with you so they can learn from your example rather than just preaching to them back at camp?) While I myself am something of a completionist gamer who likes to do EVERY single side-quest and companion quest, I freely acknowledge that this is meta-gaming and wouldn't normally fly in a tabletop game.
In some games, it actually works in the opposite direction and you have an NPC who just won't leave despite them having absolutely no reason to stay. (Looking at you, Bishop from NWN2...)
Wow, screw players who like to swap their parties around. Taking away player agency is good design, right?
I swear, Larian are intentionally giving the finger to everyone outside of a very specific kind of RPG player.
We have no idea how this will be handled. Larian may have more companions after Act 1 or maybe the PC has a chance to save the companions. Or maybe those companions are being made into the antagonist so that the PC has a relationship with the bad guy besides "the game told me this is who I need to defeat to win."
We see enough comments about how some games lack urgency or stakes. I think there's a lot of potential for this to make a great, positive impact on the story.
Somewhat related: I have a friend who won't play Mass Effect 3 because their favorite companions died in ME2. Sure, they could reload ME2 and save those companions, but the companion relationships were so powerful that they just couldn't bring themselves to play ME3. If Larian can provoke those same feelings inside of one game, then I'm super stoked. Sure, one option would be to quit the game right there. The other option is to get revenge on whatever caused the companion loss.
Long story short: I'm excited to see what Larian does with this.
One additional argument for the party: they said that the companions will react not only to what you say to them, but to what you do in the world. With this concept, it would be impossible, say, to keep Neera and Edwin in the same camp, or Edwin and Dynaheir. In other words, you can't have bloodthirsty killers and saint clerics in one camp and hope to deal with everything using your diplomacy.
I always felt myself a bit crazy when in Dragon Age games I talked in one way with Solas and then changed my opinions COMPLETELY when I approached Vivienne. Or Zevran and Wynn.
It always felt unnatural and very artificial. Now, when we know not all companions will be able to stay in your party after Act 1 in BG3, this sounds understandable to me, from this point of view: imagine a paladin. She won't be ok to stay in the same party that kills on sight.
But this wouldn't necessarily happen because for me, as someone who exclusively plays strongly good, I myself wouldn't keep those bloodthirsty killers around. So the problem as I see it is not in the game, but rather in how you chose to play your game. And how can you complain about how you chose to play your game?
IMO DA:O is a bad example, as it does not have an alignment system, thus none of them are fundamentally antagonistic toward eachother, with the possible exception of Morrigan and Wynne. What DA:O does have is an approval bar, which can definitely cause companions to leave or even attack you outright if your playstyle doesn't suit them. Sten physically challenges your authority, and while it is intended for him to yield after a fight, he can be killed or kicked out. Wynne, Leliana and Shale can attack you after a specific choice, under specific circumstances, and even if they don't they might still leave.
Those are just the ones I know of or have had happen to me. That is potentially half of all possible companions that can be forced out due to playstyle, and even if they don't leave/die, if their approval gets low, they will certainly voice their displeasure.
Also, both DAO and Inquisition have a plot that imo would surpass any alignment related squabbles. If the Warden doesn't succeed, everyone dies. If the Inquisitor doesn't succeed, everyone dies. This doesn't really apply to the story of Baldur's Gate 1+2, or what we know sofar of the story of BG3.
Wow, screw players who like to swap their parties around. Taking away player agency is good design, right?
I swear, Larian are intentionally giving the finger to everyone outside of a very specific kind of RPG player.
We have no idea how this will be handled. Larian may have more companions after Act 1 or maybe the PC has a chance to save the companions. Or maybe those companions are being made into the antagonist so that the PC has a relationship with the bad guy besides "the game told me this is who I need to defeat to win."
This. People should chill and wait until there's more concrete news. We have had dozens of snippits of news that came out, with gigantic overreactions that now look silly. Remember the 10+ pages of toxicity that followed the fear that "to hit" rolls werent going to be in the game? I do.
Let's see precisely what Larian has in store. I dont think they're going to completely kill party choice after a single act, although it may be somewhat reduced due to significant choices the player makes. We'll have to see.
One additional argument for the party: they said that the companions will react not only to what you say to them, but to what you do in the world. With this concept, it would be impossible, say, to keep Neera and Edwin in the same camp, or Edwin and Dynaheir. In other words, you can't have bloodthirsty killers and saint clerics in one camp and hope to deal with everything using your diplomacy.
I always felt myself a bit crazy when in Dragon Age games I talked in one way with Solas and then changed my opinions COMPLETELY when I approached Vivienne. Or Zevran and Wynn.
It always felt unnatural and very artificial. Now, when we know not all companions will be able to stay in your party after Act 1 in BG3, this sounds understandable to me, from this point of view: imagine a paladin. She won't be ok to stay in the same party that kills on sight.
But this wouldn't necessarily happen because for me, as someone who exclusively plays strongly good, I myself wouldn't keep those bloodthirsty killers around. So the problem as I see it is not in the game, but rather in how you chose to play your game. And how can you complain about how you chose to play your game?
IMO DA:O is a bad example, as it does not have an alignment system, thus none of them are fundamentally antagonistic toward eachother, with the possible exception of Morrigan and Wynne. What DA:O does have is an approval bar, which can definitely cause companions to leave or even attack you outright if your playstyle doesn't suit them. Sten physically challenges your authority, and while it is intended for him to yield after a fight, he can be killed or kicked out. Wynne, Leliana and Shale can attack you after a specific choice, under specific circumstances, and even if they don't they might still leave.
Those are just the ones I know of or have had happen to me. That is potentially half of all possible companions that can be forced out due to playstyle, and even if they don't leave/die, if their approval gets low, they will certainly voice their displeasure.
Also, both DAO and Inquisition have a plot that imo would surpass any alignment related squabbles. If the Warden doesn't succeed, everyone dies. If the Inquisitor doesn't succeed, everyone dies. This doesn't really apply to the story of Baldur's Gate 1+2, or what we know sofar of the story of BG3.
Okay, but my observation here was not specific to DA:O but rather about how anyone might play their game, any game. And this applies even to the DA games where you always can make a companion leave the group.
If it makes sense story wise, I'm not all too concerned about Party Lock.
After Chapter 3 in BG2, the players were party locked for a good chunk of the game. It does help that Chapter 2 was this massive open narrative experience that can take up the majority of the playing time if one was looking to be a completionist compared to everything that comes after it.
I am personally not a fan of killing off characters just for the sake of it. There should always be an option to at least attempt to save them and I think this is many people's issue with how Larian handled the companions one did not take in DOS2, so I do see why some are skeptical about this addition.
Wow, screw players who like to swap their parties around. Taking away player agency is good design, right?
I swear, Larian are intentionally giving the finger to everyone outside of a very specific kind of RPG player.
We have no idea how this will be handled. Larian may have more companions after Act 1 or maybe the PC has a chance to save the companions. Or maybe those companions are being made into the antagonist so that the PC has a relationship with the bad guy besides "the game told me this is who I need to defeat to win."
This. People should chill and wait until there's more concrete news. We have had dozens of snippits of news that came out, with gigantic overreactions that now look silly. Remember the 10+ pages of toxicity that followed the fear that "to hit" rolls werent going to be in the game? I do.
Let's see precisely what Larian has in store. I dont think they're going to completely kill party choice after a single act, although it may be somewhat reduced due to significant choices the player makes. We'll have to see.
But we do know how it was done in D:OS2. And as such it is eminently reasonable to (a) believe that it will be done exactly or pretty much the same way here (given the BG3 track record thus far of porting stuff over from D:OS2), and (b) consider how this was done in D:OS2 to be ridiculous and bad game design.
Wow, screw players who like to swap their parties around. Taking away player agency is good design, right?
I swear, Larian are intentionally giving the finger to everyone outside of a very specific kind of RPG player.
We have no idea how this will be handled. Larian may have more companions after Act 1 or maybe the PC has a chance to save the companions. Or maybe those companions are being made into the antagonist so that the PC has a relationship with the bad guy besides "the game told me this is who I need to defeat to win."
This. People should chill and wait until there's more concrete news. We have had dozens of snippits of news that came out, with gigantic overreactions that now look silly. Remember the 10+ pages of toxicity that followed the fear that "to hit" rolls werent going to be in the game? I do.
Let's see precisely what Larian has in store. I dont think they're going to completely kill party choice after a single act, although it may be somewhat reduced due to significant choices the player makes. We'll have to see.
But we do know how it was done in D:OS2. And as such it is eminently reasonable to (a) believe that it will be done exactly or pretty much the same way here (given the BG3 track record thus far of porting stuff over from D:OS2), and (b) consider how this was done in D:OS2 to be ridiculous and bad game design.
Sure - but by that same token, the lack of to hit rolls in DOS:2 (Instead favoring level and distance modifiers) was also cited by as a reason why we should expect that system to be directly ported over from DOS:2 and it turns out... that was completely and totally incorrect.
@deltago also just made an excellent point that BG2 locks your party in for the 2nd act of the game, and arguably the largest portion of direct main story detail. Whomever you bring to Spellhold is who you bring, and you dont get to make substitutions.
How do we know this wont be the solution they use for BG3, rather than DOS:2's solution? In short, we dont. We should wait to see if they provide more context before burying them (again, and again, and again).
Wow, screw players who like to swap their parties around. Taking away player agency is good design, right?
I swear, Larian are intentionally giving the finger to everyone outside of a very specific kind of RPG player.
You're forever the screwed over victim, of every update by Larian. And yet you continue to choose to subject yourself to following these updates.
Larian keeps insisting that this is a worthy sequel, but that they totally can't share why. So I'm sticking around to find out what. You people keep complaining that us critics aren't waiting for enough information, but apparently I shouldn't be here to get said information? Make up your mind.
Wow, screw players who like to swap their parties around. Taking away player agency is good design, right?
I swear, Larian are intentionally giving the finger to everyone outside of a very specific kind of RPG player.
to be fair it was not as easy to change your party in the original games or even in nwn so they are atlest being consistent.
Not everyone DIES in NWN or BG though. Even if you're locked out for a couple chapters, its very clear that you aren't coming back for awhile before you go, and you can swap people around again after getting back.
Sure - but by that same token, the lack of to hit rolls in DOS:2 (Instead favoring level and distance modifiers) was also cited by as a reason why we should expect that system to be directly ported over from DOS:2 and it turns out... that was completely and totally incorrect.
That's not a fair comparison at all because the "to hit" issue has to do with D&D rules. Yes, wherever D&D rules have forced Larian to change something from how they did it in D:OS2, they have done so, because they had to. But what I am talking about is examples of things that are not part of D&D gameplay rules, and in those circumstances the default for Larian has been to cut and paste from D:OS2.
@deltago also just made an excellent point that BG2 locks your party in for the 2nd act of the game, and arguably the largest portion of direct main story detail. Whomever you bring to Spellhold is who you bring, and you dont get to make substitutions.
@ThacoBell has already addressed this, but I'll also say: again, not at all the same. Big difference between locking in your party for some portion of the game but where you can decide the composition of your party going into that locked-down part of the game and where you can change your party after you exit that part of the game, versus permanently locking down your party for the whole rest of the game and even going so far as killing off your remaining companion options. Not the same thing at all.
Sure - but by that same token, the lack of to hit rolls in DOS:2 (Instead favoring level and distance modifiers) was also cited by as a reason why we should expect that system to be directly ported over from DOS:2 and it turns out... that was completely and totally incorrect.
That's not a fair comparison at all because the "to hit" issue has to do with D&D rules. Yes, wherever D&D rules have forced Larian to change something from how they did it in D:OS2, they have done so, because they had to. But what I am talking about is examples of things that are not part of D&D gameplay rules, and in those circumstances the default for Larian has been to cut and paste from D:OS2.
It's still an example of people over reacting to information that they lack context for. Surely you must see the parallels to the current situation...
@deltago also just made an excellent point that BG2 locks your party in for the 2nd act of the game, and arguably the largest portion of direct main story detail. Whomever you bring to Spellhold is who you bring, and you dont get to make substitutions.
@ThacoBell has already addressed this, but I'll also say: again, not at all the same. Big difference between locking in your party for some portion of the game but where you can decide the composition of your party going into that locked-down part of the game and where you can change your party after you exit that part of the game, versus permanently locking down your party for the whole rest of the game and even going so far as killing off your remaining companion options. Not the same thing at all.
Piggy backing on the above - Where did you see that you'd be locked out of using your party for the whole game? It doesnt say anything of the sort, and you cannot possibly know that to be the case.
You could have literally typed out that same sentence for BG2, replacing act 1 with chapter 4. It wouldnt have been untrue, because the blurb never says anything is permanent, only that there's a locking in at some point that will last for an undefined amount of time (maybe the whole game, maybe not).
Maybe we will be locked out, and if you do not like that, it's a valid subjective criticism. However, until Larian comments upon the situation, you're judging a game based on a topic that you cannot know the answer to.
(There are other obvious quibbles. In BG2, you'll be hundreds of thousands of exp above those left behind members, to the point that they dont really scale in the game anymore. Like it or not, those characters are essentially forgotten about by 95% of players if they were not brought along).
Sure - but by that same token, the lack of to hit rolls in DOS:2 (Instead favoring level and distance modifiers) was also cited by as a reason why we should expect that system to be directly ported over from DOS:2 and it turns out... that was completely and totally incorrect.
That's not a fair comparison at all because the "to hit" issue has to do with D&D rules. Yes, wherever D&D rules have forced Larian to change something from how they did it in D:OS2, they have done so, because they had to. But what I am talking about is examples of things that are not part of D&D gameplay rules, and in those circumstances the default for Larian has been to cut and paste from D:OS2.
It's still an example of people over reacting to information that they lack context for. Surely you must see the parallels to the current situation...
@deltago also just made an excellent point that BG2 locks your party in for the 2nd act of the game, and arguably the largest portion of direct main story detail. Whomever you bring to Spellhold is who you bring, and you dont get to make substitutions.
@ThacoBell has already addressed this, but I'll also say: again, not at all the same. Big difference between locking in your party for some portion of the game but where you can decide the composition of your party going into that locked-down part of the game and where you can change your party after you exit that part of the game, versus permanently locking down your party for the whole rest of the game and even going so far as killing off your remaining companion options. Not the same thing at all.
Piggy backing on the above - Where did you see that you'd be locked out of using your party for the whole game? It doesnt say anything of the sort, and you cannot possibly know that to be the case.
You could have literally typed out that same sentence for BG2, replacing act 1 with chapter 4. It wouldnt have been untrue, because the blurb never says anything is permanent, only that there's a locking in at some point that will last for an undefined amount of time (maybe the whole game, maybe not).
Maybe we will be locked out, and if you do not like that, it's a valid subjective criticism. However, until Larian comments upon the situation, you're judging a game based on a topic that you cannot know the answer to.
(There are other obvious quibbles. In BG2, you'll be hundreds of thousands of exp above those left behind members, to the point that they dont really scale in the game anymore. Like it or not, those characters are essentially forgotten about by 95% of players if they were not brought along).
Look, I'm not interested in starting yet another fight here, and certainly not saying anything specific aimed at you. But, firstly, I am very convinced of my take on things based on what I already know, and consider there to be more than enough information available to me to make these judgments about the game. And the argument that "I/we don't know" and "I/we should wait until everything is known" doesn't hold water. Furthermore, secondly, I don't believe that even after the game is released, and we do know everything, people will accept criticism of this game. At that point the defenders cannot make the claim anymore that "we don't know" to suppress criticism, but I am 100% certain they will come up with some new argument/spin for why any and all criticism of the game remains unjustified. And in fact, I fully intend to test this on the very first day after the game's full release, because I have no doubt that every negative thing I have said about this game will effectively remain valid even after "everything is known" about this game.
You could have literally typed out that same sentence for BG2, replacing act 1 with chapter 4. It wouldnt have been untrue, because the blurb never says anything is permanent, only that there's a locking in at some point that will last for an undefined amount of time (maybe the whole game, maybe not).
The line says you have to *commit* to your party. That says plenty to me. And nothing of that plenty is even remotely similar to the BG2 situation.
Sure - but by that same token, the lack of to hit rolls in DOS:2 (Instead favoring level and distance modifiers) was also cited by as a reason why we should expect that system to be directly ported over from DOS:2 and it turns out... that was completely and totally incorrect.
That's not a fair comparison at all because the "to hit" issue has to do with D&D rules. Yes, wherever D&D rules have forced Larian to change something from how they did it in D:OS2, they have done so, because they had to. But what I am talking about is examples of things that are not part of D&D gameplay rules, and in those circumstances the default for Larian has been to cut and paste from D:OS2.
It's still an example of people over reacting to information that they lack context for. Surely you must see the parallels to the current situation...
@deltago also just made an excellent point that BG2 locks your party in for the 2nd act of the game, and arguably the largest portion of direct main story detail. Whomever you bring to Spellhold is who you bring, and you dont get to make substitutions.
@ThacoBell has already addressed this, but I'll also say: again, not at all the same. Big difference between locking in your party for some portion of the game but where you can decide the composition of your party going into that locked-down part of the game and where you can change your party after you exit that part of the game, versus permanently locking down your party for the whole rest of the game and even going so far as killing off your remaining companion options. Not the same thing at all.
Piggy backing on the above - Where did you see that you'd be locked out of using your party for the whole game? It doesnt say anything of the sort, and you cannot possibly know that to be the case.
You could have literally typed out that same sentence for BG2, replacing act 1 with chapter 4. It wouldnt have been untrue, because the blurb never says anything is permanent, only that there's a locking in at some point that will last for an undefined amount of time (maybe the whole game, maybe not).
Maybe we will be locked out, and if you do not like that, it's a valid subjective criticism. However, until Larian comments upon the situation, you're judging a game based on a topic that you cannot know the answer to.
Fair, but consider what it sounds like to people already feeling some apprehensions: "After the first act however you are going to have to commit, also just like in real life."
Unless they can reveal in how many acts the game is going to play out, and how long each act is going to be, it sounds like you'll be playing the VAST majority of the game with the same 3 companions. If that is something they also lifted from DOS2, it's another sign they are marketing toward their own fanbase. They are either oblivious, unable, or unwilling to provide details, none of those imo are a good thing.
Also, "just like in real life"? Are they saying friendships made in life after a certain point are less valuable?
(There are other obvious quibbles. In BG2, you'll be hundreds of thousands of exp above those left behind members, to the point that they dont really scale in the game anymore. Like it or not, those characters are essentially forgotten about by 95% of players if they were not brought along).
NONE of that matters to players more interested in the story. The only players worried about that level or 2 are powergamers.
Sure - but by that same token, the lack of to hit rolls in DOS:2 (Instead favoring level and distance modifiers) was also cited by as a reason why we should expect that system to be directly ported over from DOS:2 and it turns out... that was completely and totally incorrect.
That's not a fair comparison at all because the "to hit" issue has to do with D&D rules. Yes, wherever D&D rules have forced Larian to change something from how they did it in D:OS2, they have done so, because they had to. But what I am talking about is examples of things that are not part of D&D gameplay rules, and in those circumstances the default for Larian has been to cut and paste from D:OS2.
It's still an example of people over reacting to information that they lack context for. Surely you must see the parallels to the current situation...
@deltago also just made an excellent point that BG2 locks your party in for the 2nd act of the game, and arguably the largest portion of direct main story detail. Whomever you bring to Spellhold is who you bring, and you dont get to make substitutions.
@ThacoBell has already addressed this, but I'll also say: again, not at all the same. Big difference between locking in your party for some portion of the game but where you can decide the composition of your party going into that locked-down part of the game and where you can change your party after you exit that part of the game, versus permanently locking down your party for the whole rest of the game and even going so far as killing off your remaining companion options. Not the same thing at all.
Piggy backing on the above - Where did you see that you'd be locked out of using your party for the whole game? It doesnt say anything of the sort, and you cannot possibly know that to be the case.
You could have literally typed out that same sentence for BG2, replacing act 1 with chapter 4. It wouldnt have been untrue, because the blurb never says anything is permanent, only that there's a locking in at some point that will last for an undefined amount of time (maybe the whole game, maybe not).
Maybe we will be locked out, and if you do not like that, it's a valid subjective criticism. However, until Larian comments upon the situation, you're judging a game based on a topic that you cannot know the answer to.
Fair, but consider what it sounds like to people already feeling some apprehensions: "After the first act however you are going to have to commit, also just like in real life."
Unless they can reveal in how many acts the game is going to play out, and how long each act is going to be, it sounds like you'll be playing the VAST majority of the game with the same 3 companions. If that is something they also lifted from DOS2, it's another sign they are marketing toward their own fanbase. They are either oblivious, unable, or unwilling to provide details, none of those imo are a good thing.
Also, "just like in real life"? Are they saying friendships made in life after a certain point are less valuable?
(There are other obvious quibbles. In BG2, you'll be hundreds of thousands of exp above those left behind members, to the point that they dont really scale in the game anymore. Like it or not, those characters are essentially forgotten about by 95% of players if they were not brought along).
NONE of that matters to players more interested in the story. The only players worried about that level or 2 are powergamers.
You are so right on both counts.
On the second point, yeah I always set up my party composition for roleplaying and banter and party interactions first and foremost, and not for the most optimally powerful group. So if I'm off to investigate some elven ruins, yeah I want to take all my elven companions with me because that's what feels right. That's how I play. And the issue of some companions being a level or two behind everyone else never even enters my thoughts. It literally doesn't even register in my brain.
Sure - but by that same token, the lack of to hit rolls in DOS:2 (Instead favoring level and distance modifiers) was also cited by as a reason why we should expect that system to be directly ported over from DOS:2 and it turns out... that was completely and totally incorrect.
That's not a fair comparison at all because the "to hit" issue has to do with D&D rules. Yes, wherever D&D rules have forced Larian to change something from how they did it in D:OS2, they have done so, because they had to. But what I am talking about is examples of things that are not part of D&D gameplay rules, and in those circumstances the default for Larian has been to cut and paste from D:OS2.
It's still an example of people over reacting to information that they lack context for. Surely you must see the parallels to the current situation...
@deltago also just made an excellent point that BG2 locks your party in for the 2nd act of the game, and arguably the largest portion of direct main story detail. Whomever you bring to Spellhold is who you bring, and you dont get to make substitutions.
@ThacoBell has already addressed this, but I'll also say: again, not at all the same. Big difference between locking in your party for some portion of the game but where you can decide the composition of your party going into that locked-down part of the game and where you can change your party after you exit that part of the game, versus permanently locking down your party for the whole rest of the game and even going so far as killing off your remaining companion options. Not the same thing at all.
Piggy backing on the above - Where did you see that you'd be locked out of using your party for the whole game? It doesnt say anything of the sort, and you cannot possibly know that to be the case.
You could have literally typed out that same sentence for BG2, replacing act 1 with chapter 4. It wouldnt have been untrue, because the blurb never says anything is permanent, only that there's a locking in at some point that will last for an undefined amount of time (maybe the whole game, maybe not).
Maybe we will be locked out, and if you do not like that, it's a valid subjective criticism. However, until Larian comments upon the situation, you're judging a game based on a topic that you cannot know the answer to.
(There are other obvious quibbles. In BG2, you'll be hundreds of thousands of exp above those left behind members, to the point that they dont really scale in the game anymore. Like it or not, those characters are essentially forgotten about by 95% of players if they were not brought along).
Look, I'm not interested in starting yet another fight here, and certainly not saying anything specific aimed at you. But, firstly, I am very convinced of my take on things based on what I already know, and consider there to be more than enough information available to me to make these judgments about the game. And the argument that "I/we don't know" and "I/we should wait until everything is known" doesn't hold water. Furthermore, secondly, I don't believe that even after the game is released, and we do know everything, people will accept criticism of this game. At that point the defenders cannot make the claim anymore that "we don't know" to suppress criticism, but I am 100% certain they will come up with some new argument/spin for why any and all criticism of the game remains unjustified. And in fact, I fully intend to test this on the very first day after the game's full release, because I have no doubt that every negative thing I have said about this game will effectively remain valid even after "everything is known" about this game.
Playing a game that I dont't want to play just to prve my point sounds like a masochsim to me. Just saying ?
Sure - but by that same token, the lack of to hit rolls in DOS:2 (Instead favoring level and distance modifiers) was also cited by as a reason why we should expect that system to be directly ported over from DOS:2 and it turns out... that was completely and totally incorrect.
That's not a fair comparison at all because the "to hit" issue has to do with D&D rules. Yes, wherever D&D rules have forced Larian to change something from how they did it in D:OS2, they have done so, because they had to. But what I am talking about is examples of things that are not part of D&D gameplay rules, and in those circumstances the default for Larian has been to cut and paste from D:OS2.
It's still an example of people over reacting to information that they lack context for. Surely you must see the parallels to the current situation...
@deltago also just made an excellent point that BG2 locks your party in for the 2nd act of the game, and arguably the largest portion of direct main story detail. Whomever you bring to Spellhold is who you bring, and you dont get to make substitutions.
@ThacoBell has already addressed this, but I'll also say: again, not at all the same. Big difference between locking in your party for some portion of the game but where you can decide the composition of your party going into that locked-down part of the game and where you can change your party after you exit that part of the game, versus permanently locking down your party for the whole rest of the game and even going so far as killing off your remaining companion options. Not the same thing at all.
Piggy backing on the above - Where did you see that you'd be locked out of using your party for the whole game? It doesnt say anything of the sort, and you cannot possibly know that to be the case.
You could have literally typed out that same sentence for BG2, replacing act 1 with chapter 4. It wouldnt have been untrue, because the blurb never says anything is permanent, only that there's a locking in at some point that will last for an undefined amount of time (maybe the whole game, maybe not).
Maybe we will be locked out, and if you do not like that, it's a valid subjective criticism. However, until Larian comments upon the situation, you're judging a game based on a topic that you cannot know the answer to.
(There are other obvious quibbles. In BG2, you'll be hundreds of thousands of exp above those left behind members, to the point that they dont really scale in the game anymore. Like it or not, those characters are essentially forgotten about by 95% of players if they were not brought along).
Look, I'm not interested in starting yet another fight here, and certainly not saying anything specific aimed at you. But, firstly, I am very convinced of my take on things based on what I already know, and consider there to be more than enough information available to me to make these judgments about the game. And the argument that "I/we don't know" and "I/we should wait until everything is known" doesn't hold water. Furthermore, secondly, I don't believe that even after the game is released, and we do know everything, people will accept criticism of this game. At that point the defenders cannot make the claim anymore that "we don't know" to suppress criticism, but I am 100% certain they will come up with some new argument/spin for why any and all criticism of the game remains unjustified. And in fact, I fully intend to test this on the very first day after the game's full release, because I have no doubt that every negative thing I have said about this game will effectively remain valid even after "everything is known" about this game.
Just like so many people were so certain that to-hit rolls were going to be removed. Just like so many people were certain the UI would be identical to DOS:2 (now proven false). Just like so many people were convinced there was going to be team initiative. Just like so many people were convinced that PC made characters were going to be far inferior to origin characters. Just like the baseless canard that the game was going to be multiplayer first.
People continue to come up with arguments for how the game will be bad based on extremely limited evidence, and have been proven wrong time and time again. A few other thoughts
A - No one is suppressing your criticism. Please see that I myself have said I would prefer if they DIDNT lock you into the same 4 characters for the whole game. The literal only difference between our positions on this is that I'm not willing to assume with certainty that this means the whole game based on a throwaway sentence.
B -It's a strawman to invent your own argument and then counter it. No one here is saying "We cant know everything even after the game is released". That's patently absurd, and no one in the last few pages that I can see has said it. The only argument I'm making is that you're making a judgement to fit your own bias based on a piece of information that completely lacks context. We dont need to wait for the game to be release necessarily to know, but we do need to wait for Larian to clarify.
A parting thought - Can we all please stop playing the victim? No one is attacking anyone here. Saying "We dont know all the information" shouldnt be seen as some attack on anyone, because it isnt. If I challenge your argument, that isnt an attack.
NONE of that matters to players more interested in the story. The only players worried about that level or 2 are powergamers.
I would be willing to bet that in BG2, more than 90% of players use the exact same set of characters in Ust Natha as they do in Suldenesselar. I could perhaps see a small argument for people who hate Imoen (heathens that they be) switching her out for someone else, but the other 4 companions are probably almost always the same.
and to be fair - I dont think that Just because I dont switch my party members out means I'm a power gamer or uninterested in the story.
To be fair, It WAS team initiative until Larian changed it and we still don’t know if origin characters will have an advantage over custom.
I will also say killing or making NPCs available after a certain point AND telling the players that is going to happen gives an emotional disconnect towards the characters the player doesn’t bring along. Why would players invest the time and energy getting to know them when they’re going to be removed after a certain point determined by the developers?
To be fair, It WAS team initiative until Larian changed it and we still don’t know if origin characters will have an advantage over custom.
I will also say killing or making NPCs available after a certain point AND telling the players that is going to happen gives an emotional disconnect towards the characters the player doesn’t bring along. Why would players invest the time and energy getting to know them when they’re going to be removed after a certain point determined by the developers?
They never fully locked themselves into that decision. Just like with To Hit. They barely showed any gameplay by the time they moved to individual initiative.
They've claimed that custom characters are being brought forward as much as possible. They've somewhat admitted that they cannot be completely equal, since you're starting from a blank slate rather than a character that Larian has already created. That said, in even this last community update, they put an emphasis on the reactivity of the world to a custom character. According to their own expressed points, they've brought Custom characters as far forward as possible.
Now - could they be lying? Of course. Until we have more information, I'm not going to assume they're being insincere since Larian doesnt have a track record to lying or misleading anyone that I've seen.
"Now - could they be lying? Of course. Until we have more information, I'm not going to assume they're being insincere since Larian doesnt have a track record to lying or misleading anyone that I've seen."
Well, aside from calling a game BG3 that has more in common with DoS2 and tabletop than the game series its named for...
To be fair, It WAS team initiative until Larian changed it and we still don’t know if origin characters will have an advantage over custom.
I will also say killing or making NPCs available after a certain point AND telling the players that is going to happen gives an emotional disconnect towards the characters the player doesn’t bring along. Why would players invest the time and energy getting to know them when they’re going to be removed after a certain point determined by the developers?
Yes exactly. And in addition, the UI claim remains valid because nobody said it was going to be *exactly* the same. Only that it was too similar, and that still remains a valid criticism. The claim that the game favors MP over SP also is absolutely still valid. And finally, the claim that custom characters are "lesser" relative to origin characters is automatically valid because Larian has basically said so.
Sure - but by that same token, the lack of to hit rolls in DOS:2 (Instead favoring level and distance modifiers) was also cited by as a reason why we should expect that system to be directly ported over from DOS:2 and it turns out... that was completely and totally incorrect.
That's not a fair comparison at all because the "to hit" issue has to do with D&D rules. Yes, wherever D&D rules have forced Larian to change something from how they did it in D:OS2, they have done so, because they had to. But what I am talking about is examples of things that are not part of D&D gameplay rules, and in those circumstances the default for Larian has been to cut and paste from D:OS2.
It's still an example of people over reacting to information that they lack context for. Surely you must see the parallels to the current situation...
@deltago also just made an excellent point that BG2 locks your party in for the 2nd act of the game, and arguably the largest portion of direct main story detail. Whomever you bring to Spellhold is who you bring, and you dont get to make substitutions.
@ThacoBell has already addressed this, but I'll also say: again, not at all the same. Big difference between locking in your party for some portion of the game but where you can decide the composition of your party going into that locked-down part of the game and where you can change your party after you exit that part of the game, versus permanently locking down your party for the whole rest of the game and even going so far as killing off your remaining companion options. Not the same thing at all.
Piggy backing on the above - Where did you see that you'd be locked out of using your party for the whole game? It doesnt say anything of the sort, and you cannot possibly know that to be the case.
You could have literally typed out that same sentence for BG2, replacing act 1 with chapter 4. It wouldnt have been untrue, because the blurb never says anything is permanent, only that there's a locking in at some point that will last for an undefined amount of time (maybe the whole game, maybe not).
Maybe we will be locked out, and if you do not like that, it's a valid subjective criticism. However, until Larian comments upon the situation, you're judging a game based on a topic that you cannot know the answer to.
(There are other obvious quibbles. In BG2, you'll be hundreds of thousands of exp above those left behind members, to the point that they dont really scale in the game anymore. Like it or not, those characters are essentially forgotten about by 95% of players if they were not brought along).
Look, I'm not interested in starting yet another fight here, and certainly not saying anything specific aimed at you. But, firstly, I am very convinced of my take on things based on what I already know, and consider there to be more than enough information available to me to make these judgments about the game. And the argument that "I/we don't know" and "I/we should wait until everything is known" doesn't hold water. Furthermore, secondly, I don't believe that even after the game is released, and we do know everything, people will accept criticism of this game. At that point the defenders cannot make the claim anymore that "we don't know" to suppress criticism, but I am 100% certain they will come up with some new argument/spin for why any and all criticism of the game remains unjustified. And in fact, I fully intend to test this on the very first day after the game's full release, because I have no doubt that every negative thing I have said about this game will effectively remain valid even after "everything is known" about this game.
Playing a game that I dont't want to play just to prve my point sounds like a masochsim to me. Just saying ?
Don't need to ever play the game to know what's in it. I would be more than happy to spend a few hours watching a stream in place of wasting my time and money actually playing the game myself.
There are RPG videogames like DA2 or Drakensang: TROT where you can only save one of your party members (your siblings in DA2 and the mage or the HE ranger in drakensang) and you have to play several times the game to see the full content. I hope it´s the case in Bg3.
To be fair, It WAS team initiative until Larian changed it and we still don’t know if origin characters will have an advantage over custom.
I will also say killing or making NPCs available after a certain point AND telling the players that is going to happen gives an emotional disconnect towards the characters the player doesn’t bring along. Why would players invest the time and energy getting to know them when they’re going to be removed after a certain point determined by the developers?
Yes exactly. And in addition, the UI claim remains valid because nobody said it was going to be *exactly* the same. Only that it was too similar, and that still remains a valid criticism. The claim that the game favors MP over SP also is absolutely still valid. And finally, the claim that custom characters are "lesser" relative to origin characters is automatically valid because Larian has basically said so.
It is still valid? I'd love for you provide some evidence that this is a MP game first and SP game second. Please - share.
The rest sounds a bit like goalpost moving to me. First it was "cut and paste", now it's only "similar to".
"Now - could they be lying? Of course. Until we have more information, I'm not going to assume they're being insincere since Larian doesnt have a track record to lying or misleading anyone that I've seen."
Well, aside from calling a game BG3 that has more in common with DoS2 and tabletop than the game series its named for...
Dont forget the inevitable BG4, which will be like BG3, which has more in common with DoS2, which has more in common with DoS1, which has...
Comments
In some games, it actually works in the opposite direction and you have an NPC who just won't leave despite them having absolutely no reason to stay. (Looking at you, Bishop from NWN2...)
I swear, Larian are intentionally giving the finger to everyone outside of a very specific kind of RPG player.
We have no idea how this will be handled. Larian may have more companions after Act 1 or maybe the PC has a chance to save the companions. Or maybe those companions are being made into the antagonist so that the PC has a relationship with the bad guy besides "the game told me this is who I need to defeat to win."
We see enough comments about how some games lack urgency or stakes. I think there's a lot of potential for this to make a great, positive impact on the story.
Somewhat related: I have a friend who won't play Mass Effect 3 because their favorite companions died in ME2. Sure, they could reload ME2 and save those companions, but the companion relationships were so powerful that they just couldn't bring themselves to play ME3. If Larian can provoke those same feelings inside of one game, then I'm super stoked. Sure, one option would be to quit the game right there. The other option is to get revenge on whatever caused the companion loss.
Long story short: I'm excited to see what Larian does with this.
IMO DA:O is a bad example, as it does not have an alignment system, thus none of them are fundamentally antagonistic toward eachother, with the possible exception of Morrigan and Wynne. What DA:O does have is an approval bar, which can definitely cause companions to leave or even attack you outright if your playstyle doesn't suit them. Sten physically challenges your authority, and while it is intended for him to yield after a fight, he can be killed or kicked out. Wynne, Leliana and Shale can attack you after a specific choice, under specific circumstances, and even if they don't they might still leave.
Those are just the ones I know of or have had happen to me. That is potentially half of all possible companions that can be forced out due to playstyle, and even if they don't leave/die, if their approval gets low, they will certainly voice their displeasure.
Also, both DAO and Inquisition have a plot that imo would surpass any alignment related squabbles. If the Warden doesn't succeed, everyone dies. If the Inquisitor doesn't succeed, everyone dies. This doesn't really apply to the story of Baldur's Gate 1+2, or what we know sofar of the story of BG3.
This. People should chill and wait until there's more concrete news. We have had dozens of snippits of news that came out, with gigantic overreactions that now look silly. Remember the 10+ pages of toxicity that followed the fear that "to hit" rolls werent going to be in the game? I do.
Let's see precisely what Larian has in store. I dont think they're going to completely kill party choice after a single act, although it may be somewhat reduced due to significant choices the player makes. We'll have to see.
After Chapter 3 in BG2, the players were party locked for a good chunk of the game. It does help that Chapter 2 was this massive open narrative experience that can take up the majority of the playing time if one was looking to be a completionist compared to everything that comes after it.
I am personally not a fan of killing off characters just for the sake of it. There should always be an option to at least attempt to save them and I think this is many people's issue with how Larian handled the companions one did not take in DOS2, so I do see why some are skeptical about this addition.
Sure - but by that same token, the lack of to hit rolls in DOS:2 (Instead favoring level and distance modifiers) was also cited by as a reason why we should expect that system to be directly ported over from DOS:2 and it turns out... that was completely and totally incorrect.
@deltago also just made an excellent point that BG2 locks your party in for the 2nd act of the game, and arguably the largest portion of direct main story detail. Whomever you bring to Spellhold is who you bring, and you dont get to make substitutions.
How do we know this wont be the solution they use for BG3, rather than DOS:2's solution? In short, we dont. We should wait to see if they provide more context before burying them (again, and again, and again).
You're forever the screwed over victim, of every update by Larian. And yet you continue to choose to subject yourself to following these updates.
Larian keeps insisting that this is a worthy sequel, but that they totally can't share why. So I'm sticking around to find out what. You people keep complaining that us critics aren't waiting for enough information, but apparently I shouldn't be here to get said information? Make up your mind.
to be fair it was not as easy to change your party in the original games or even in nwn so they are atlest being consistent.
Not everyone DIES in NWN or BG though. Even if you're locked out for a couple chapters, its very clear that you aren't coming back for awhile before you go, and you can swap people around again after getting back.
It's still an example of people over reacting to information that they lack context for. Surely you must see the parallels to the current situation...
Piggy backing on the above - Where did you see that you'd be locked out of using your party for the whole game? It doesnt say anything of the sort, and you cannot possibly know that to be the case.
You could have literally typed out that same sentence for BG2, replacing act 1 with chapter 4. It wouldnt have been untrue, because the blurb never says anything is permanent, only that there's a locking in at some point that will last for an undefined amount of time (maybe the whole game, maybe not).
Maybe we will be locked out, and if you do not like that, it's a valid subjective criticism. However, until Larian comments upon the situation, you're judging a game based on a topic that you cannot know the answer to.
(There are other obvious quibbles. In BG2, you'll be hundreds of thousands of exp above those left behind members, to the point that they dont really scale in the game anymore. Like it or not, those characters are essentially forgotten about by 95% of players if they were not brought along).
Fair, but consider what it sounds like to people already feeling some apprehensions: "After the first act however you are going to have to commit, also just like in real life."
Unless they can reveal in how many acts the game is going to play out, and how long each act is going to be, it sounds like you'll be playing the VAST majority of the game with the same 3 companions. If that is something they also lifted from DOS2, it's another sign they are marketing toward their own fanbase. They are either oblivious, unable, or unwilling to provide details, none of those imo are a good thing.
Also, "just like in real life"? Are they saying friendships made in life after a certain point are less valuable?
NONE of that matters to players more interested in the story. The only players worried about that level or 2 are powergamers.
On the second point, yeah I always set up my party composition for roleplaying and banter and party interactions first and foremost, and not for the most optimally powerful group. So if I'm off to investigate some elven ruins, yeah I want to take all my elven companions with me because that's what feels right. That's how I play. And the issue of some companions being a level or two behind everyone else never even enters my thoughts. It literally doesn't even register in my brain.
Playing a game that I dont't want to play just to prve my point sounds like a masochsim to me. Just saying ?
Just like so many people were so certain that to-hit rolls were going to be removed. Just like so many people were certain the UI would be identical to DOS:2 (now proven false). Just like so many people were convinced there was going to be team initiative. Just like so many people were convinced that PC made characters were going to be far inferior to origin characters. Just like the baseless canard that the game was going to be multiplayer first.
People continue to come up with arguments for how the game will be bad based on extremely limited evidence, and have been proven wrong time and time again. A few other thoughts
A - No one is suppressing your criticism. Please see that I myself have said I would prefer if they DIDNT lock you into the same 4 characters for the whole game. The literal only difference between our positions on this is that I'm not willing to assume with certainty that this means the whole game based on a throwaway sentence.
B -It's a strawman to invent your own argument and then counter it. No one here is saying "We cant know everything even after the game is released". That's patently absurd, and no one in the last few pages that I can see has said it. The only argument I'm making is that you're making a judgement to fit your own bias based on a piece of information that completely lacks context. We dont need to wait for the game to be release necessarily to know, but we do need to wait for Larian to clarify.
A parting thought - Can we all please stop playing the victim? No one is attacking anyone here. Saying "We dont know all the information" shouldnt be seen as some attack on anyone, because it isnt. If I challenge your argument, that isnt an attack.
I would be willing to bet that in BG2, more than 90% of players use the exact same set of characters in Ust Natha as they do in Suldenesselar. I could perhaps see a small argument for people who hate Imoen (heathens that they be) switching her out for someone else, but the other 4 companions are probably almost always the same.
and to be fair - I dont think that Just because I dont switch my party members out means I'm a power gamer or uninterested in the story.
I will also say killing or making NPCs available after a certain point AND telling the players that is going to happen gives an emotional disconnect towards the characters the player doesn’t bring along. Why would players invest the time and energy getting to know them when they’re going to be removed after a certain point determined by the developers?
They never fully locked themselves into that decision. Just like with To Hit. They barely showed any gameplay by the time they moved to individual initiative.
They've claimed that custom characters are being brought forward as much as possible. They've somewhat admitted that they cannot be completely equal, since you're starting from a blank slate rather than a character that Larian has already created. That said, in even this last community update, they put an emphasis on the reactivity of the world to a custom character. According to their own expressed points, they've brought Custom characters as far forward as possible.
Now - could they be lying? Of course. Until we have more information, I'm not going to assume they're being insincere since Larian doesnt have a track record to lying or misleading anyone that I've seen.
Well, aside from calling a game BG3 that has more in common with DoS2 and tabletop than the game series its named for...
There are RPG videogames like DA2 or Drakensang: TROT where you can only save one of your party members (your siblings in DA2 and the mage or the HE ranger in drakensang) and you have to play several times the game to see the full content. I hope it´s the case in Bg3.
It is still valid? I'd love for you provide some evidence that this is a MP game first and SP game second. Please - share.
The rest sounds a bit like goalpost moving to me. First it was "cut and paste", now it's only "similar to".
Dont forget the inevitable BG4, which will be like BG3, which has more in common with DoS2, which has more in common with DoS1, which has...