Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - Latest News Gathering the Party - Community Update #2

I am sorry if I have misunderstood your point. I am European, I admit I might not know what you mean by "Californian vibes"? I thought it was euphemism for liberal.

I give you that this is really a safe choice for them, but I am okay with that, this means everybody can get what they want (I am more interested in the non-romance relationships with the party members, cause friendships really need some loving in video games, I reckon. In BG1-2, my favourite relationship was the sibling-bond with Imoen).

And I don't think this will take away anything from their character writing (as you said, Faerun is super cool with queerness, so there is no potential conflict, like the gay companion story line in DA Inquisition).

I didn't insisted upon anything, just shared some info in case someone didn't know it already. Also, I don't really understand the activism part of your argument. Who is the activist here? The writers?

About Safana, yeah DnD changed a lot in 20 years. Nerd culture changed a lot. Thank god, in my opinion. I mean I didn't hate Safana, I just found her dull as frick. Also Coran, the randy elf fighter / thief. Well, he was frankly just tiresome (I admit I always played with NPC mods, like NPC Project, so my impression of those NPCs is greatly altered by that, I guess).

Im talking about woke culture.
which youre probably aware of given your use of language

I actually preferred Inquisition in that regard. It felt like the characters actually had established personalities and preferences rather than just being whatever you tried to mould them into. wrt the sexuality, although more restrictive can be frustrating it can also be more meaningful than the "everyone is kinda bi really but without acknowledging it's a thing". My impression (though I have no definitive proof) is that's what they did with Leliana in Oranges which set the scene for "everyone can romance anyone" in DA2, so I'm glad they didn't do likewise with e.g. Sera. Who I'm aware that some people really didn't like, because of both the romance option and the "what you see is what you get" personality where she couldn't be coerced or forced into being something other than what she was. Not just her, and some of the characters did irritate me, but made it more interesting and immersive IMHO.


I'm kind of torn on this issue. I like some diversity and wouldn't like e.g. female players and characters consigned to being mothers and skivvies, of course; and more generally I'll enjoy diversity because it's interesting, but as soon as there's a feeling that someone is Making A Point then it stops being enjoyable.

But one thing that often goes wrong is that the earnestness of making diversity a thing can often end up being the total opposite where it can simply make something in the image of the values and familiarity of one person's self-professed diversity and inclusion while inadvertently (or sometimes deliberately) not representing anyone else's values or qualities. It's quite a fine line and one that a lot of creators (or rather directors) frequently get badly wrong.

This is kind of what i was getting at.
When you limit some characters to certain options then you are giving them personality and you give their tastes and choices some thought.

the one size fits alla pproach mostly means that you make all the romances kind of samey.

But yeah im very weary of the Githyanki romance. This feels like the PoE situatoin where theres some "take that" towards the players in a lot of paths.
It could turn into a Viconia situation, but im having my doubts. Considering the background and the current lcimate of the industry, im just afraid that this is the first hint of the kind of woke bullshit infesting the game

Quite. I think that sums up the problem from both "sides", by which I mean the noisy extremes: some want the first group and none of the "political", the others want it the other way round. And the majority would kinda like stuff to just be interesting and less shouty.

what a very mature response to my post.
but a good illustration of what i was talking about.

Gamers are the problems here afterall, right?

Hardly. I think of gamers like a group of people in a large dining table. Most are just at their own tables (consoles/PCs) minding their own business and doing their own thing. A few are gossips, some going from table to table to spread the latest "news" they feel is important, some are offended that the "news" is being pushed on them when they didn't ask for it, some are annoyed at the content of the "news" and others are so tuned out to what's going on around them they simply ignore it all.

The issue, I think, lies between those who politicize too many things, those who are offended by too many things or those who dislike people disagreeing with their own opinions on too many things.

This is true of all groups, not just gamers.

I think thats an awfully reductionist stance (in the: everything can be explained by going into more general terms way of reductionism)
Denying the way the industry is going is and trying to explain it away as "both extremes mumble jumble politics have always been there mumble" is disingenuous at best.

Is it reductionst? I suppose it would be if one contended there were two "sides", so to speak; even were I to contend that there is, those who like balance and those who don't, I can't really say that's really the case because I might like a balance on some regards, find it bland in others and annoying or even offensive in others still. In which case it's really down to the games industry to be diverse enough to cater to various tastes, personalities and backgrounds. And as a general rule I'd say there is a bit of a lack of that at the moment: whether or not politically, there is a trend for a "one size fits all" force-feeding of particular games styles at present, or at least styles that I personally find disagreeable. But even that is not unique to today, the industry has always tended to swarm from one fad to another.

I would probably be considered the epitome of the 'gamer' this tweet, or whatever it is, is talking about; a white, Christian, conservative male. While I consider myself 'devout' as a Christian and anti-socialist as a conservative...i can say with 100% honesty that it would be a boring and dry game indeed if there was only white, male humans in the game. Faerun is not the real world and does not follow the racial proportions of real nations (like the US being over 70% white). I hope to see lots of racial diversity that breathe life and culture into the game. Creating just as many strong, lead women is not 'politics' unless it was made specifically to be that...even then, with good story telling they could hide that, easily. Hairstyles? that's about the stupidest comment i've ever read, the author is a neanderthal. For sexuality, again, it all comes down to the writing. This is not the real world and I don't expect it to follow any norms or standards..but I do expect good writing and not obvious pandering. "Look LGBTQ+ community, look! We added people like you! Look! Look!" That is pandering. I have seen plenty of non-straight characters in video games that had great story-telling and it just fit. It's obvious when a company is just trying to be politically correct versus when they care about good writing and good stories; it's rare that you get both pandering and good writing and character development. I hope to see great story-telling here, even if I don't personally play through any non-straight story lines. Body types? Again, really? Wtf is normative? and what is a political body type?

If you write good stories with believable characters that fit the world you are building a game in (in this instance its Faerun), no one, besides a select few, are going to care about any of the things in that ridiculous post. It's a video game.

Vometia: What i meant by reducitonist is Reductionism in the sense that one seeks answers by trying to apply "simpler" explanations. Which is what i think gets done in this debate a lot.
It gets generalized away as saying "people are upset and its always going to be this way and it always has been this way".

I dislike this because it implies that there has been no change. And i do not think that this is accurate.

As you pointed out, theres a bit of a one size fits all appraoch.
I point towards "california" specifically because this is where alot of gaming companies recruit their employees and especialy writers. So there is a saturation of that mindset in the industry.
Hence why a lot of peopel seem to be getting upset with CDPR over their image change from "the Poland company" to what they are now.

If i had to make a comparison between genres (which i dont like doing), id like to explain it that way: Remember when all American action movies in the early 2000s were about American Soldier Men blowing up Evil Sand people terrorists?

basically were at that stage in Video games now. Only instead of the Republicans we got Captain Planet.

deathride:

The commen tabout Hairstyles was obviously about that Obsidian Space game. Where every single female character had that "I want to talk tot he manager" pixie haricut.
Lots of people made fun of that

I think we're more in agreement than not. The "California" thing is what made me think of the "but your diversity is not my diversity" thing that so often goes along with it. That sort of thinking can end up becoming a parody of itself. See also grimdark and any other number of overreaching philosophies.

I would write more (or at least more intelligently... hopefully) but I'm knackered and my brain doesn't work. I need sleep (even though I won't find any).

i think the whole "gamers react badly to diversity" thing is nonsense.
to evoke yet another comparison with another genre, take MTG for example.

Currently people are realy upset about MTG just.. having alot of very WEIRD art. Conventionally attractive people seem to be verboten, besides the poster boy planeswalkers.And the ethnic makeup of various of the factions just seeming outright bizarre.
i think the picture from Innistrad of the three werewolves that were literaly the "Three ethnicites of the world according to americans".

This can be cited as people beeing upset by diversity.
but then people forget that MTG had Jamuraa, an entire continent (and a full blown expansion at that) based on Africa, and people loved it.
because it didnt feel out of palce. Noteably it also wasnt very diverse, sicne everyone in it was african, obviously.
But in the grand total of MTG, it was more "diverse".
likewise people realy liked Kamigawa.

My point here beeing: Actual Diversity was never the problem.
but people feel like they are beeing treated like children that need to be educated when it comes to blatant tokenism (which i thought we got over in the 90s)

Ive made this point in another thread regarding Dragon Age Inquisition.


Actually from descent into avernus, im a bit hopefull that Larian might bring some sense into the Diversity bit. Little Calimshan is something i like: something that grounds middle easterners suddenly apeparing in a European inspired fantasy world.
Opposed to Dragon Age Inquistion where it just felt like it was done with a Spreadsheet "we need this percent of that ethnicity".


Now, with regards to what ive said about PoE: there seems to be a trend of , for the lack of a better term, wanting to punish the audience for making certain choices. I dont know if it was here or in another forum where someone pointed out that none of the straight romances in PoE had a happy end while all of the non straight ones did. As i certainly havent tried that out myself, people can correct me if im wrong in quoting that.
Which circles around what is aid about Female characters vs male characters in Western RPGs. Theres a double standard here: male characters are almost always attractive with chiseled jawlines and male model physique, meanwhile female characters become dumpier, crooked nosed and Karen haired.

So when someone claims they want to make "More (X) (enter: nuanced, mature, realistic etc.) character interactions" then i just wonder if that just means "punish what i dont like and pander to what i like"

Oh, yeah, it was a tired, clichéd stereotype when I was growing up in the '80s but it still persists. Usually courtesy of people who make it their business to condemn tired, clichéd stereotypes, interestingly.

Anyway, I am going to bed, even though it's only 7pm here. I've been awake since 11:30pm last night. Again. Games don't feature enough insomniacs, obviously.

I agree; diversity hasn't really ever been the problem...at least not in recent years. Pandering diversity for a statistic, however, just makes for bad, forced, story-lines and character arcs. A D&D example; it was applauded when the 5E first released to have a black female as the human race picture and a black male as the fighter picture in the PHB. Personally, it doesn't feel forced as they both, IMO, fit the setting artistically and are just well done. I'm sure if you search the bowels of reddit you'll find someone that had a problem with them...but I've never seen anyone give any grief over it which says a lot, actually, since WoTC is an openly left-wing company with a very large right-wing fan base because, for the most part, they do a good job at continuing the legacy of D&D and not forcing anything in-game just to win over a minority while still allowing the freedom for any minority to also play how they wish.

to add to all that: im not sutpid.
i see when something is done in good faith and when something is not done in good faith. and WOTC in recent years definitly has done the latter.
to the point where they pissed off their own creators (like the creator of eberron beeign seriously pissed at crawford messing with his settings elves for brownie points)

Come on, books, movies, games, or comics are full of underwritten, undeveloped, superfluous characters. But I´ve never seen that people ask for a compelling backstory and character development about the male guy in a suit in a bar, the muscled man working out in the gym, the bored cashier in the hotel lobby, or the bikini girl skating in the beach.

But if in the scene there´s a gay, black-asian-spanish, Muslim, etc... character and suddenly you have to justify your presence there, you need to have a compelling backstory, character development and a plot justification to be there, just because.

There were, are, and will always be scenery, background characters, and nobody complains about not knowing the motivations of the bikini girl or workout boy character but, if it´s from a minority, you suddenly need to justify your presence in there. Because if not, you´re just a gay/black/asian/spanish character that it´s only there to fulfill some imaginary minority integration quote and it´s all about politics.

So, All background characters could only be hetero, white, Christian, and male and if not, you have to explain why? For what reason?

It´s really tiresome reading the same "When a character is only there because it´s gay and no other reason" line over and over. Its an f... background character. It needs no other reason to be there more than add color to the world around, it´s part of the scenery. Like workout man and bikini girl. they are only there because it´s a beach (and they possibly have an amazing six-pack on camera) the cashier is gay or have eight fingers or have a large moustache. No political reason. It´s simply a cashier that likes to sleep with men. That´s it. No more plot reasons needed because it´s an unimportant background character.

Let´s use a scene as an example.
A meteor comes crashing into the city. Two unnamed characters appear on the screen and one embraces and kisses the other and says "It´s gonna be ok, babe"
the screenwriter and director want to show the dramatic scene, the desperation of the people and that the human spirit always tries to find hope in the most desperate circumstances.
So, we use two caucasian actors, one male, one female. No problem
Now we use two women, one caucasian the other Afro-American -> Same scene, we convey the same message to the viewer.

If there´s a huge meteor crashing into the city and there are two desperate people trying to find shelter in her lover´s embrace in the scene and you are fixated in only seeing two interracial women kissing each other on-screen maybe its because it annoys you that there are two women kissing on the scene, not because any "political statement"

Sounds like those are things that YOU notice.

Nope, didn´t notice Marvel´s Valkyria or the captain of Flash TV series are gay or if Stephen king´s Geralt of the Dark Tower is afroeuropean in the movie and not in the books; if Assassin´s Creed: Origins Egyptian people are black etc or if I noticed I didn´t care (because those facts do not change anything about the character's role in the plot) until my FB and twitter account was flooded with twitters about "blackwashing" "LGTBI lobbies" "political agendas" and a lot of nonsensical BS.