So we'll never get a true successor?

[Doofus]

4 character slots only? Everything since BG2 has been only 4 character slots. Its almost like the technology has regressed, permanently.

[radubradu]

This game has absolutely nothing to do with the original games. The more I play, the more disappointed I become.

[Zyco]

Nah.. this is just a Divinity game with a D&D layover on it.

[Altair]

Originally posted by Caz:

BG3 is a true successor.
If you don't like the game, that's fine, there's the door. But it's still a true successor.

Lol, whatever. It may be a good game, but it is definitely not a true successor to BG1 and 2, It is much closer to DOS1 and 2, with some lore references to the BG theme. The closest spiritual successor to BG is probably Dragon Age Origins, and then to a lesser extent the Pillars of Eternity and Pathfinder games.

[Zoopy]

Originally posted by Zyco:

Nah.. this is just a Divinity game with a D&D layover on it.

Nah. As a fan of the Divinity OS games, other than sharing an engine, they have very little in common with BG3.

[Wuffle]

Originally posted by Doofus:

Originally posted by Wuffle:

people who whine that there are only 4 slots, whats your argument for why you need more?

You're locked into character choices. You NEED a tank, You NEED a Rogue. You NEED a Healer. and you NEED a Mage.

no you don't you can do whatever roles you want, you dont need a healer, if you hot no healer, you just gotta play smarter

[Caz]

Originally posted by DESTARD:

Originally posted by Caz:

And what focus were they supposed to have? Microtransactions? Bland, boring characters just so you can have a small army?

I've yet to hear anyone that's complaining about party size be clear about why they "need" a larger party size.

Larian just wanted to make a Good!!

Good what? A good game? They made a great game.

Originally posted by DESTARD:

So they brought in Green Screen Motion that doesn't make the game good doesn't make a it a true successor.Capture

What an oddly specific criteria to focus on to claim the game isn't good. Just using motion capture does not inherently make anything good or a true successor. Good thing there's tons more than just that involved with BG3.

Originally posted by DESTARD:

Everyone playing is looking to see if the game is Good right now.

And with the exception of a few trolls, people agree it is.

Originally posted by DESTARD:

Then again I'm still on Act 1 with 17.5 hours and it's as boring as ever.

You're not going to enjoy every game you play. That doesn't make the game bad nor does it mean the game is not a true successor. I didn't like DA:Inquisition, but I'm not going to say it's not a true successor in the DA franchise.

[Doofus]

Originally posted by Wuffle:

people who whine that there are only 4 slots, whats your argument for why you need more?

The original games allowed WAY more diverse parties, and didn't force you into roles for your party. BG3 forces you to have a Tank, a Healer, a Rogue, and a Mage, of some type, just like any other ridiculous CRPG since BG2. They're all the same.

[Caz]

Originally posted by Altair:

Originally posted by Caz:

BG3 is a true successor.
If you don't like the game, that's fine, there's the door. But it's still a true successor.

Lol, whatever. It may be a good game, but it is definitely not a true successor to BG1 and 2, It is much closer to DOS1 and 2, with some lore references to the BG theme. The closest spiritual successor to BG is probably Dragon Age Origins, and then to a lesser extent the Pillars of Eternity and Pathfinder games.

Explain how it's not a true successor, then. The people saying it's not aren't giving any proof.

[Caz]

Originally posted by Doofus:

Originally posted by Wuffle:

people who whine that there are only 4 slots, whats your argument for why you need more?

The original games allowed WAY more diverse parties, and didn't force you into roles for your party. BG3 forces you to have a Tank, a Healer, a Rogue, and a Mage, of some type, just like any other ridiculous CRPG since BG2. They're all the same.

You didn't answer the question, though. Whats your argument for why you need more?

[Drake]

Party size depends on how the campaign is made. The size rules the action economy and party formation (you get more supports and more frontliners), so basically at one point you'll get to fight small armies with a party of 6.

This is what happened in baldur's gate 1&2, you had packs of goblins (sometimes up to 8 or 10) instead of 3 or 4 and hard fights could have more than one caster and could tackle large creatures at lower levels. Plus you had a lot of fights in dungeons.

If the campaign is toned down, you can do with 4 people, like it's done in pnp, with only 2 or 3 fights between rests.

[Lancenig]

The industry on the whole has kind of regressed. Is what it is.

[Cloud Strife]

People are not happy in their life so they will find something to complain about in everything. I mean look at that absurd topic, this wrong association in your imagination of ''regression'' with the team ''decision'' to go with 4 members instead of 6, it's just false and wrong before even trying to start arguing.

And other sick people, like this guy ''ACS36'' telling us we should complain about the game being ''too short'' and the world ''too small'', jesus I'm already at 12 hours in the game and I'm still level 3 on a Quest of finding the first Druid. It is probably going to take months or years before reaching the end, with some entire day of gaming non-stop...

It took 6 years to create this game. How absurd those comments are about being too small? Especially when those comments come from some lazy gamers in the community, they cannot understand what effort and passion mean.

No, it's not by typing your illusion and mental problems on internet that your point of view will suddenly appear into the game. Just by selecting your profile, we know how many hours you spend and on which game. It does tell more about your addiction problems then anything else.

[Some Kinda Kobold]

Damn people are 'really' reaching for things to complain about.

If it bothers you that much there's probably a Mod for it. But to answer the question-

MOST Turn-based games are designed around a 4-player party limit. It's just how things are. Any more would possibly make fights too easy or would require more enemies and longer fights. And would just turn into a Micro-managing mess for the player(s).

[Яeplicant]

Originally posted by Zoopy:

Originally posted by Яeplicant:

So, basically 4 people? You just invalided your own thread.

I'm not on OP's side here, but I feel compelled to point out that you completely missed OP's point, which is that a 4 person party locks you into those 4 roles.

It's ultimately the player's choice which roles to use in the party. You're only locked into any of them, if you stick to that line of thought.

It's just commentary on his end and the want or need to have a bigger party size.

[Zoopy]

Originally posted by Яeplicant:

It's ultimately the player's choice which roles to use in the party. You're only locked into any of them, unless stick to that line of thought.

It's just commentary on his end and the want or need to have a bigger party size.

Like I said, I'm not agreeing with OP. Just wanted to point out that you misunderstood what he was saying.