Originally Posted by Nyanko
Originally Posted by CandrianIllborne
Originally Posted by kanisatha
I think this approach of focusing the EA on evil playthroughs is not a good strategy for the game. It runs the risk of making the evil path default for the game, because that's what will get all the iterative improvement attention. Even the good aligned companions won't show until after EA, and so won't benefit from that iterative improvement. A good EA strategy would allow a representative slice of the game to be iterated and not just one particular way of playing the game.



I sincerely doubt that the "evil path" will be the default for the game. It's pretty clear historically and on these forums that players prefer to play the good path. This is a mass market game with a mass market audience, and going with the evil path as default would 1-harm sales, and 2-be very unusual. I think if they were going with an evil default you would hear about it in the marketing, because it would be a fairly unusual narrative choice.


But it wouldn't be unprecedented though. Tyranny went for an evil dark setting and it sold pretty well for its niche genre. Warhammer fantasy or 40k settings, for example, are more or less neutral evil. Nobody is good in there. And they are some of the most appealing settings in video games nowadays.



Tyranny was niche though, as you mentioned, and I think that a Warhammer/40k is not the same type of game or experience that a single-player, story based RPG like BG3 is. I'm not arguing that there's not a market for it. I am arguing that BG3 won't be going down that path. Does anyone really think that they would?