We all have heard the controversy shortly before the release of BG3 when other game studios dissed BG3. But now that I look at the game and the reactions to it, I fear they were in some way right, but for different reasons.
BG3 obviously has problems. Act 3 is a mess, its full of bugs and even the story and characters are not all that great. But nothing of that matters. Why? Because nearly everyone is talking about sex and are simping for the companions. So what does that tell other developers? That they just need to add sex and characters specifically made for sex appeal and "attractiveness", checking off various preferences on a list and they are good. No need to invest much resources in writing and storytelling. This will sadly be the near future of RPGs. Sure there will still be PG13 RPGs without sex (although they too will likely create their NPCs in a way to allow for simping/thirsting) but the flagship AAA RPGs will probably all go into this direction.
There'll always be empty souls who produce by checklist, without passion or understanding.
It's the visionaries we hope for. The ones who understand that creativity is about more than quotas. The goal becomes one of inches, where the inspired creators lead the way, bit by bit, and perhaps, one day, we'll finally get there.
Because nearly everyone is talking about sex and are simping for the companions. So what does that tell other developers? That they just need to add sex and characters specifically made for sex appeal and "attractiveness", checking off various preferences on a list and they are good. No need to invest much resources in writing and storytelling. This will sadly be the near future of RPGs. Sure there will still be PG13 RPGs without sex (although they too will likely create their NPCs in a way to allow for simping/thirsting) but the flagship AAA RPGs will probably all go into this direction.
Not sure I agree totally with the sex part but certainly I agree with the companions and relationships part. Larian didn't start this but RPGs are on the slippery slope of dumbed-down, pap for the masses, lowest common denominator tripe. The direction the D&D rules are going in is part and parcel of this.
We all have heard the controversy shortly before the release of BG3 when other game studios dissed BG3. But now that I look at the game and the reactions to it, I fear they were in some way right, but for different reasons.
BG3 obviously has problems. Act 3 is a mess, its full of bugs and even the story and characters are not all that great. But nothing of that matters. Why? Because nearly everyone is talking about sex and are simping for the companions. So what does that tell other developers? That they just need to add sex and characters specifically made for sex appeal and "attractiveness", checking off various preferences on a list and they are good. No need to invest much resources in writing and storytelling. This will sadly be the near future of RPGs. Sure there will still be PG13 RPGs without sex (although they too will likely create their NPCs in a way to allow for simping/thirsting) but the flagship AAA RPGs will probably all go into this direction.
I have to be honest, by this point I have seen more people saying "EVERYONE IS TALKING ABOUT ALL THE SEX!!!" than I have actually seen people talking about the sex.
There'll always be empty souls who produce by checklist, without passion or understanding.
It's the visionaries we hope for. The ones who understand that creativity is about more than quotas. The goal becomes one of inches, where the inspired creators lead the way, bit by bit, and perhaps, one day, we'll finally get there.
The problem is that the 'empty souls' are the ones who control what will or will not get produced.
I don't care about the sex. I choose Shadowheart as romance, because hers is the one with the least sex content, because it's not, what I want. I'm in act 3 right now and don't see any bugs and enjoy it immensely. The only thing is that I had to start the
Raphael
fight over, because one of the opponents bugged out. That's it. I have more bugs in games, that are years released.
"We are all stories in the end. Just make it a good one."
Because nearly everyone is talking about sex and are simping for the companions. So what does that tell other developers? That they just need to add sex and characters specifically made for sex appeal and "attractiveness", checking off various preferences on a list and they are good. No need to invest much resources in writing and storytelling. This will sadly be the near future of RPGs. Sure there will still be PG13 RPGs without sex (although they too will likely create their NPCs in a way to allow for simping/thirsting) but the flagship AAA RPGs will probably all go into this direction.
Not sure I agree totally with the sex part but certainly I agree with the companions and relationships part. Larian didn't start this but RPGs are on the slippery slope of dumbed-down, pap for the masses, lowest common denominator tripe. The direction the D&D rules are going in is part and parcel of this.
You said it perfectly, @Beechams. Couldn't agree with you more, other than that there are at least a few studios out there that I believe will continue to hold out against this tyranny of the lowest common denominator majority.
For studios like Obsidian and inXile, being part of Xbox Games is the best thing that could happen to them and to us *roleplaying* game fans. MS has been quite vocal in pointing out that they want small, niche games from their studios because they cannot have every game in GamePass be a huge blockbuster GOTY type game and NEED many smaller games to fill out GamePass to make it attractive to subscribers. So these studios can make those smaller games that are not meant to appeal to millions of the lowest common denominator. Per what the director of Obsidian said in a recent interview, that's exactly the choice they have made, to make smaller, single player only, story-focused, AA games and NOT huge AAA mass-appeal games. And I for one am extremely happy with this. Extremely.
For studios like Obsidian and inXile, being part of Xbox Games is the best thing that could happen to them and to us *roleplaying* game fans.
I hope you are right, but we haven't seen much from either of the studios, and nothing RPG related since the acquisition. Obsidian choose to pursue different genres (survival & narrative adventure) and their bigger projects (Avowed, Outer Worlds2) are still unknowns. InXile has Clockwork rRevolution, but I also am not sure what it is - looks more Bioshocky to me, than RPG-y.
Not sure I agree totally with the sex part but certainly I agree with the companions and relationships part. Larian didn't start this but RPGs are on the slippery slope of dumbed-down, pap for the masses, lowest common denominator tripe. The direction the D&D rules are going in is part and parcel of this.
Isn't that what D&D always has been? It's an horrendous monster of Frankenstein stitched together from leftover bits of fantasy pulp. At least sex is something realistic, instead of humans mating with dragons and producing beings with human bodies and dragon heads, looking like low budget movie monsters from eighty years ago.
I can see little difference between D&D and the moronic Star Wars franchise, for example. Both are plainly catering for children, but are adopted by grownups that have enough time on hand to get in touch with their inner child. Nonetheless, it is all very nonsensical.
Being afraid that the genre will be dumbed down is an irrational fear, I think. There is not much deeper to sink, after bunny humans. Still, I am glad it is possible to make interesting computer games based on such inane foundations.
For studios like Obsidian and inXile, being part of Xbox Games is the best thing that could happen to them and to us *roleplaying* game fans.
I hope you are right, but we haven't seen much from either of the studios, and nothing RPG related since the acquisition. Obsidian choose to pursue different genres (survival & narrative adventure) and their bigger projects (Avowed, Outer Worlds2) are still unknowns. InXile has Clockwork rRevolution, but I also am not sure what it is - looks more Bioshocky to me, than RPG-y.
If I had to choose studio that I think will carry the torch of quality RPG games, I wouldn't name neither Obsidian nor Inxile. Obsidian haven't delivered anything truly amazing since FNV (except Pentiment, but this is something different) and Inxile disappointed me with both Wasteland 2 and 3. Their humour just don't click with me. I don't have big expectations towards Avowed, if anything I'm more curious of Clockwork Rwvolution (if it will be closer to Arcanum rather than BioShock).
I don't intend to be dismissive of this post, but I firmly disagree with its logic.
Baldur's Gate 3 is not the first successful game, or RPG even, to have sexual elements. Almost every BioWare game since Mass Effect 1 and Dragon Age: Origins have had these elements. I'll be posting the Fox News moral outrage segment for ME1 at the end of this post. People talked about BioWare's romances for years, "simping" for characters like Liara, Miranda, Garrus, Morrigan, Solas, etc. Yet there are very few RPGs with similar "obsession" on romance and sex, with the notable exception of BG3 and a few others. Obsidian went out of its way many times in the last ten years to avoid doing romances at all. Other CRPGs do not have cinematics to portray these dynamics. Bethesda has the technology, but prefers to allude to the interaction. We're not in 2005; we've had almost twenty years of sexual content in video games by this point. There is very little in these romances, sexual interactions, and characters that we have not seen already in the last decade of video games. Hell, Saints Row IV parodied the whole romance and sex dynamic in games back in 2013.
Further, we have a ceiling on sexual content in the form of transitioning the game from a rated M to a rated AO. GTA: San Andreas went through the hot coffee controversy, clearly establishing a limit on sexual content in a game by an advisory board, regardless of the size of the company. That's why we have Reddit posts saying, "For how horny this game is, the sex scenes are remarkably tame." They have to be tame for financial reasons (and also, I imagine, creative reasons).
Developers are not brainless sheep. They make games for a living and play a variety of games. For their creative visions, they are not going to look at "OMG SEX!!11!1!" and take it one-for-one to whatever project they are working on. That's not how project development works, and it's not how a creative process works. Someone might come in and say there is utility in some sex appeal, but this will be contextualized in the nature of the project in question. If anything, games have become less sexual in the last 10 years, but are certainly more sexual than they were 20 years ago. Developers are people, not mere bodies in motion.
We all have heard the controversy shortly before the release of BG3 when other game studios dissed BG3. But now that I look at the game and the reactions to it, I fear they were in some way right, but for different reasons.
BG3 obviously has problems. Act 3 is a mess, its full of bugs and even the story and characters are not all that great. But nothing of that matters. Why? Because nearly everyone is talking about sex and are simping for the companions. So what does that tell other developers? That they just need to add sex and characters specifically made for sex appeal and "attractiveness", checking off various preferences on a list and they are good. No need to invest much resources in writing and storytelling. This will sadly be the near future of RPGs. Sure there will still be PG13 RPGs without sex (although they too will likely create their NPCs in a way to allow for simping/thirsting) but the flagship AAA RPGs will probably all go into this direction.
Go ahead, the sex scenes don't bother me at all, in fact, I'm one of those who think that Larian should recycle scenes to make montages to go to sleep with your partner at the camp and have a romantic scene with your partner before the final battle, I think they are details that would give immersion because they are realistic behaviors. Having said this, I am concerned about the behavior of the community in relation to this, especially because these companies have investments, shareholders... who do not care about the quality of the result, they want to sell with the minimum investment. If the message that we consumers give is: you can give me an incomplete game and I can't stop saying that the game is perfect, how wonderful, because you give me a few sex scenes... in the future we are going to eat a lot of shit from games full of soft porn. And for the record, I hope they fix Baldur's sooner rather than later and it becomes the epic game it deserves to be, but right now it is not and we cannot forget it because of some erotic scenes (which, by the way, they have made these scenes very elegant, nothing scandalous).
I add that other games have had romances but it is the first that has such explicit romances, and with so many possibilities. Damn, you can fuck an illithid
We all have heard the controversy shortly before the release of BG3 when other game studios dissed BG3. But now that I look at the game and the reactions to it, I fear they were in some way right, but for different reasons.
BG3 obviously has problems. Act 3 is a mess, its full of bugs and even the story and characters are not all that great. But nothing of that matters. Why? Because nearly everyone is talking about sex and are simping for the companions. So what does that tell other developers? That they just need to add sex and characters specifically made for sex appeal and "attractiveness", checking off various preferences on a list and they are good. No need to invest much resources in writing and storytelling. This will sadly be the near future of RPGs. Sure there will still be PG13 RPGs without sex (although they too will likely create their NPCs in a way to allow for simping/thirsting) but the flagship AAA RPGs will probably all go into this direction.
Go ahead, the sex scenes don't bother me at all, in fact, I'm one of those who think that Larian should recycle scenes to make montages to go to sleep with your partner at the camp and have a romantic scene with your partner before the final battle, I think they are details that would give immersion because they are realistic behaviors. Having said this, I am concerned about the behavior of the community in relation to this, especially because these companies have investments, shareholders... who do not care about the quality of the result, they want to sell with the minimum investment. If the message that we consumers give is: you can give me an incomplete game and I can't stop saying that the game is perfect, how wonderful, because you give me a few sex scenes... in the future we are going to eat a lot of shit from games full of soft porn. And for the record, I hope they fix Baldur's sooner rather than later and it becomes the epic game it deserves to be, but right now it is not and we cannot forget it because of some erotic scenes (which, by the way, they have made these scenes very elegant, nothing scandalous).
I add that other games have had romances but it is the first that has such explicit romances, and with so many possibilities. Damn, you can fuck an illithid
Pretty much. The other companies see that they can release unfinished games just fine. They just need to add waifus and soft porn to the game and everyone will only talk about that.
But I disagree that the BG3 sex is elegant. Larian came to the same conclusion described above which is why sex was such a central feature in the marketing. From constantly mentioning it ("we used intimacy coordinators!"), to of course showing it to rile people up (bear sex) and of course how central sex is to the interaction with the companions and much dialoge is about romance and sex and not much else. Which is also why they changed their plans, abandoned what they worked on and made Halsin/Minthara companions as they saw people were thirsting for them. So Halsin became a sex addict to fuel that. And of course how easy it was to get sex already in act 1 (no, this was not a bug. This was intended so that EA players can have sex scenes)
We all have heard the controversy shortly before the release of BG3 when other game studios dissed BG3. But now that I look at the game and the reactions to it, I fear they were in some way right, but for different reasons.
BG3 obviously has problems. Act 3 is a mess, its full of bugs and even the story and characters are not all that great. But nothing of that matters. Why? Because nearly everyone is talking about sex and are simping for the companions. So what does that tell other developers? That they just need to add sex and characters specifically made for sex appeal and "attractiveness", checking off various preferences on a list and they are good. No need to invest much resources in writing and storytelling. This will sadly be the near future of RPGs. Sure there will still be PG13 RPGs without sex (although they too will likely create their NPCs in a way to allow for simping/thirsting) but the flagship AAA RPGs will probably all go into this direction.
Go ahead, the sex scenes don't bother me at all, in fact, I'm one of those who think that Larian should recycle scenes to make montages to go to sleep with your partner at the camp and have a romantic scene with your partner before the final battle, I think they are details that would give immersion because they are realistic behaviors. Having said this, I am concerned about the behavior of the community in relation to this, especially because these companies have investments, shareholders... who do not care about the quality of the result, they want to sell with the minimum investment. If the message that we consumers give is: you can give me an incomplete game and I can't stop saying that the game is perfect, how wonderful, because you give me a few sex scenes... in the future we are going to eat a lot of shit from games full of soft porn. And for the record, I hope they fix Baldur's sooner rather than later and it becomes the epic game it deserves to be, but right now it is not and we cannot forget it because of some erotic scenes (which, by the way, they have made these scenes very elegant, nothing scandalous).
I add that other games have had romances but it is the first that has such explicit romances, and with so many possibilities. Damn, you can fuck an illithid
Pretty much. The other companies see that they can release unfinished games just fine. They just need to add waifus and soft porn to the game and everyone will only talk about that.
But I disagree that the BG3 sex is elegant. Larian came to the same conclusion described above which is why sex was such a central feature in the marketing. From constantly mentioning it ("we used intimacy coordinators!"), to of course showing it to rile people up (bear sex) and of course how central sex is to the interaction with the companions and much dialoge is about romance and sex and not much else. Which is also why they changed their plans, abandoned what they worked on and made Halsin/Minthara companions as they saw people were thirsting for them. So Halsin became a sex addict to fuel that. And of course how easy it was to get sex already in act 1 (no, this was not a bug. This was intended so that EA players can have sex scenes)
Are we playing the same game? Sex was not at all central to interacting with the companions for me. The only one who propositioned me was Lae'Zel, and I put that down to her being a weird alien. The others flirted with me, but I rejected them. I romanced Shadowheart but tbh she seemed distracted for huge chunks of the time with her personal questt.
I swear I read what's being said in this thread and I feel like I'm seeing comments from another universe. Like, you guys are the *only ones* saying that "NOBODY IS PAYING ATTENTION TO THE BUGS BECAUSE SEX!!!" Meanwhile, there are complaints about the bugs in act 3 and other issues in *nearly every other forum here, in multiple threads.* Also seems bizarre to me that you're talking like this is a new thing. In fact it seems to me romances in games were MUCH more involved and in-depth than what BG3 offers 10-15 years ago, and yes this includes sex scenes. Somehow a bunch of other much more popular games included sex scenes and romancing companions without destroying the genre. I mean you DO know that Baldur's Gate 2 allowed you to romance companions, right? In a much more involved romance storyline than BG3 does? If I remember right I think one of the romance options even gets *pregnant*? It didn't have sex scenes, though. But DA:O, at the time considered the spiritual successor to Baldur's Gate, did.
We all have heard the controversy shortly before the release of BG3 when other game studios dissed BG3. But now that I look at the game and the reactions to it, I fear they were in some way right, but for different reasons.
BG3 obviously has problems. Act 3 is a mess, its full of bugs and even the story and characters are not all that great. But nothing of that matters. Why? Because nearly everyone is talking about sex and are simping for the companions. So what does that tell other developers? That they just need to add sex and characters specifically made for sex appeal and "attractiveness", checking off various preferences on a list and they are good. No need to invest much resources in writing and storytelling. This will sadly be the near future of RPGs. Sure there will still be PG13 RPGs without sex (although they too will likely create their NPCs in a way to allow for simping/thirsting) but the flagship AAA RPGs will probably all go into this direction.
Go ahead, the sex scenes don't bother me at all, in fact, I'm one of those who think that Larian should recycle scenes to make montages to go to sleep with your partner at the camp and have a romantic scene with your partner before the final battle, I think they are details that would give immersion because they are realistic behaviors. Having said this, I am concerned about the behavior of the community in relation to this, especially because these companies have investments, shareholders... who do not care about the quality of the result, they want to sell with the minimum investment. If the message that we consumers give is: you can give me an incomplete game and I can't stop saying that the game is perfect, how wonderful, because you give me a few sex scenes... in the future we are going to eat a lot of shit from games full of soft porn. And for the record, I hope they fix Baldur's sooner rather than later and it becomes the epic game it deserves to be, but right now it is not and we cannot forget it because of some erotic scenes (which, by the way, they have made these scenes very elegant, nothing scandalous).
I add that other games have had romances but it is the first that has such explicit romances, and with so many possibilities. Damn, you can fuck an illithid
Pretty much. The other companies see that they can release unfinished games just fine. They just need to add waifus and soft porn to the game and everyone will only talk about that.
But I disagree that the BG3 sex is elegant. Larian came to the same conclusion described above which is why sex was such a central feature in the marketing. From constantly mentioning it ("we used intimacy coordinators!"), to of course showing it to rile people up (bear sex) and of course how central sex is to the interaction with the companions and much dialoge is about romance and sex and not much else. Which is also why they changed their plans, abandoned what they worked on and made Halsin/Minthara companions as they saw people were thirsting for them. So Halsin became a sex addict to fuel that. And of course how easy it was to get sex already in act 1 (no, this was not a bug. This was intended so that EA players can have sex scenes)
Are we playing the same game? Sex was not at all central to interacting with the companions for me. The only one who propositioned me was Lae'Zel, and I put that down to her being a weird alien. The others flirted with me, but I rejected them. I romanced Shadowheart but tbh she seemed distracted for huge chunks of the time with her personal questt.
I swear I read what's being said in this thread and I feel like I'm seeing comments from another universe. Like, you guys are the *only ones* saying that "NOBODY IS PAYING ATTENTION TO THE BUGS BECAUSE SEX!!!" Meanwhile, there are complaints about the bugs in act 3 and other issues in *nearly every other forum here, in multiple threads.* Also seems bizarre to me that you're talking like this is a new thing. In fact it seems to me romances in games were MUCH more involved and in-depth than what BG3 offers 10-15 years ago, and yes this includes sex scenes. Somehow a bunch of other much more popular games included sex scenes and romancing companions without destroying the genre. I mean you DO know that Baldur's Gate 2 allowed you to romance companions, right? In a much more involved romance storyline than BG3 does? If I remember right I think one of the romance options even gets *pregnant*? It didn't have sex scenes, though. But DA:O, at the time considered the spiritual successor to Baldur's Gate, did.
Go to reddit, various fan forums, discords, ect. Bugs are mentioned here, but in other places, places where the Devs pay much more attention to, its all about memes and thirsting. That is especially obvious in places with a voting feature.
And already in EA Larian created hype with their sexual content and put it into overdrive in their last PFH. That hype created good reviews, as magazines have no interest to go against the hype, and all of BG3s problems faded into the background. A template if what other publishers will do in the future.
And no (mainstream) game did what BG3 did. BG2 had a few romances with selected companions, but in BG3 you can have sex with everyone and quite early. Its also not fade to black but acted out. Cyberpunk did beat BG3 with their genital selection (Not sure though how this looked in EA) and no game boasted having to use intimacy coordinators during their marketing or showed sex scenes, including sex with a bear, during a big, public marketing event.
I feel we had this discussion, word for word, after every Dragon Age game that the 'adult' material would drive away youth and stop new fans, that the high AAA budget and style would prevent smaller games being viable, etc etc
and like, here we are decade later still having it and with way more CRPGs to play so, I think we're good
Minthara is the best character and she NEEDS to be recruitable if you side with the grove! Also- I support the important thread in the suggestions: Let everyone in the Party Speak
