Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - General What Makes Good RPG Writing?

One ‘last’ thing I will say is that I find it intriguing, from a purely psychological POV, how the Larian-cult can never see any wrong in their god: how they will turn somersaults to justify anything the non-indoctured see as tripe.

I’m referring to no-one here with this comment – I’m just saying, there are those out there for whom Larian can literally do no wrong, short of killing children. And even then, you never know with these people: their tone is starry-eyed, zombified, slavering wankery of their deity.

It was refreshing, though, to read the more sober criticisms here.

But go on Steam, and there more than a few characters who are literally addicted to this game, for whatever reason, and it is to them nectar from the gods of gaming. They will keep playing and playing, over and over, the same scenarios, for 100s of hours. Anyone who believes the bar may, perhaps, have been set somewhat low is immediately eviscerated.

Stunning, really, that such low expectations exist – but hey, it’s only a game. And a game I happen to think is very playably average: a competent, simple-minded distraction from the pressure of work and whatnot, but as forgettable as chewing a piece of spearmint gum.

Then again, I never believed in any gods, so maybe I’m just the wrong audience…

Man, this is my first Larian game and I'm already in a cult? Wow, the devil works hard, but Larian works harder!

You actually posted you comment right at the same time I was writing mine (check the times), so I never even saw it until I hit 'post reply'.

Like I said though, there was no reference to anyone here. Refer to the line: 'I’m referring to no-one here with this comment' in the comment you quoted...

I see what you mean, but I don't really think there's a problem with us having no idea about the Absolute and what it really is. It's a mystery and it's meant to be a mystery. I'm thinking back to Pillars of Eternity; sure you physically SEE Thaos early on, but if I recall correctly, you don't really get any context to know he's significant or the main bad guy until like, act 2. It's not fundamentally different from how we become aware of the Absolute early on but probably aren't going to find out what its deal is until later, most likely at Moonrise tower. I think the real problem is that we lack a conflict to emotionally invest in. The threat of the tadpole really falls flat, since the game does a poor job of selling the threat of it, but at the same time it never really gives us a cathartic moment of releasing the initial threat it set up so we can feel good about exploring further. The narrative still pretends the tadpole is the most important thing when the storytelling and gameplay tell us not to worry about it.

I think that structurally, The Absolute (I actually like the name, by the way. It's firm and to the point, simple in a good way I feel) isn't even meant to be the 'main villain'. Or at least, the absolute ISN'T structurally the main villain whatever the intent of the writers was. It's a mystery to solve, same as the tadpoles. I don't think not having a clear villain is necessary from the beginning, especially since Larian is clearly trying for more of a sandbox approach to encourage exploration. But the story is just unfocused and the parts ultimately don't work together.

And to address your latest post, I would argue that our Tav is very much bland, unremarkable and non-special as an MC. Certainly if you step back and compare them to the rest of the party. Also to bring up your point about the openning being 'Marvel-inspired' I have to disagree with you there. What Larian is doing is writing 101: starting with something especially exciting to ensure you grab the audience's attention. But like everything else Larian does, they cranked it up way too far. Based on what I've seen in the Original Sin games, this is still entirely within their style and to blame Marvel for it is just taking an unnecessary shot.

the dialogue is full of wise-cracks and has an OTT comical flavour which I just found a bit immature and not very believable. For whatever reason I found much of the BG dialogue reminiscent of this particular style and it's just not for me. Some people like it, that's fine but as I have said before, it feels different from the overall tone of previous BG games.

I must admit, it always puzzles me when folk say stuff like this … not that folk prefer their fantasy to be more serious, which is of course perfectly fine, but when they see BG1 & 2 as a contrast to BG3 in this regard. I love the original games but their tone is all over the place and they’re jam-packed with jokes, silliness, affectionate spoofs and comedy characters along with their more serious themes. Based on what we’ve seen so far, I actually find BG3 far less silly, though admittedly what silliness there is probably hits harder when all dialogue is voiced. We can of course have different views of how successful the wise-cracking OTT comedy is, but for me its simple presence isn’t a differentiator.

Personally, I’m neutral on whether and how much comedy is part of a good RPG. I don’t believe it’s essential, though I agree with those who have said POE, for example, probably takes itself too seriously. I think I tend to prefer RPGs which send me on a bit of an emotional rollercoaster, including making me laugh, making me sad, shocking me, and so on. I wouldn’t expect a consistent tone from an RPG any more than I would from real life, and I want to see all kinds of characters - and be able to be all kinds of characters - in the world they create, and have moments of fun and lightheartedness in amongst darkness and tragedy.

I think having more dry, situational, ironic comedy in greater representation could be nice. BG2 had aggressively comedic moments of different types. BG3 is definitely more serious than DOS2. Maybe tweaking the kind of humor represented is the way out.

I actually find BG3 far less silly

As for Absolute, much like the simple terms found in the nautiloid, Perfection, I've taken it to be a connection between the cult and the Mind-Flayers. Again, that could just be me trying to connect things together.

I have no doubt there is a reason and meaning behind that name, but when I hear "cult of an Absolute" I can't help think they are just vodka drinking regulars.

Funniest fucking thing I’ve ever read in my life – I might reply to it properly next Fri after a week’s work, but I can’t stop laughing rn…

Where do you even begin with how ‘silly’ BG3 is?

Was the flame sword at level one a ‘sober’ choice for you? Or how about the campy little clicky-finger thing the illithid does in the cinematic?

It’s not ‘silly’?

Is it not silly to have demons, dragons, illithids, hell etc at level one – is that very much sober compared to the old games?

I can’t stop laughing…

Clearly the worst written game I’ve ever witnessed for a long time, by miles and miles, and a very small fraction of people love all this stuff: will defend it to their last breath.

Thanks for the newest line to haunt me forever.

God, imagine walking into the "final boss room", and there's just drows drinking Vodka. Wrong cult of the Absolute!

So you're one of those people that would attack lord of the rings for being silly and "woke" were it to come out today. Enlightening.

Sir konmehn ...