When I arrived to BG3, I was still extremely new to CRPGs with my only former experience being Divinity Original Sin 2 - which I had finished just a week or so before joining you guys here on the forums because my lack of DnD experience made me struggle ingame - and the community almost instantly replied with many helpful tips and advises (many of which I still heed :D). I spent (and still do) a lot of time observing the different debates here, sometimes offering my completely newbie point of view, and taking all of different opinions to heart in order to understand the many aspects of DnD and CRPGs.
During the winter, I had some recommendations from the community (special shout-out to Abits and Firesnakearies, thank you both for your recommendations!) and I have been exploring the games in-between my observations here on the forums.
By now I have finished PoE 1 and 2 (which I loved so dearly that my heart broke in half when I finished the second game - and I would probably put PoE1 as my favorite game of all times), managed to finish the entire part of BG3 that is available, had my second play-through in D:OS2 and I am almost done with Pathfinder Kingmaker as I write this - and as soon as I am done with Pathfinder Kingmaker, I'll wrap up Dragon Age: Origins (which I got stuck on almost immediately due to being bad, but I now feel confident enough to try it again!) and after DAO, I'll move on to Tyranny (with a healthy dose of BG3 every now and then
).
Playing all of these games certainly gave me new aspects to ponder about - and, I actually am even more pleased with Larian than I was before playing all of these titles.
You see, it might be because I am not a die-hard fan to any of these games (nor their companies) exclusively. I truly enjoyed each and every one of these games, despite their differences and I would struggle to choose between them (except for putting PoE1 as my favorite, because that game seriously just blew me off my feet). I realized the fun interactions of RTwP - but I do not necessarily prefer it before turn-based. I feel happy and content with either, as long as it is well made and makes sense alongside the rest of the game. I also realized how much (or little) your actions might (or might not) matter in CRPGs and I came to appreciate the absurd amount of time and effort game/story developers pour into these absolutely fantastic stories - especially when the game-route is rather free and you're not forced in a direct linear story arc.
Disclaimer before you read any further - everything is based on my OPINION(S). You do not have to agree with everything I say, and I welcome discussions regarding any topic listed below - but please keep a good tone and let's respect the fact that sometimes we just don't think nor feel the same way about certain things.
So - onward to the part mostly meant for Larian (incase they ever read it <3 ):
Part one: Companions - banter, monologues and dialogues. One of the thing that bothered me almost endlessly in most of these titles where the queue-system used for companion
dialogues (make sure to note the difference between
dialogues, banter and companion monologues. By "Dialogues" I refer to actual conversations, where you (as PC) get to choose a response to which the NPC react. By "banter" I mean the quick exchange of words (which you can in no way control), usually between your companions (think Pathfinder Kingmaker campfire banter). By "monologues" I mean responses made from the companions that you cannot react to - such as their reactions to quest decisions/developments (think PoE, DAO or Astarions comment about the Loviatar priest).
All of these are, in my opinion, required and equally important in order for a game (or at least the companions) to feel alive and engaging. However - while I absolutely adore the campfire banter of Pathfinder Kingmaker and the monologues of Pillars of Eternity and Dragon Age: Origins, most of these games *severely* lack proper dialogues. And, the dialogues that do exist comes by far too rarely (which might be why they are usually of amazing quality, though!).
The relationship system (as in your personal favor/relationship/reputation/loyalty levels - the term is less important as long as everybody understands that I am referring to the sheet-reputation that you gain from doing things NPCs like or dislike) is usually but one of many criteria that has to be met in order for you to converse with your companions. One requirements is the relationship level required (when your companion likes and dislikes you more), and the second one is the story progression requirement (sometimes this meant conversations locked to particular events, which of course makes sense - but sometimes this requirement might be tied to the main story for no obvious reason). The third, more optional, requirement would be previous speech-checks - such as romance-interaction triggers or certain quest-choices triggers (partly related to requirement 1 and 2). Most of the titles that I mentioned above had at least the first two requirements enabled for any kind of companion dialogues. This means, that you did not only have to meet the requirement of said relationship level, but you *also* had to make sure you had progressed your main quest line enough - which lead to complications and/or irritation during the playthrough - at least for me.
Two games handled this worse than the other titles - namely Pathfinder Kingmaker and Pillars of Eternity 2 (I did not at all feel this way about the first PoE..). Pathfinder Kingmaker is an extremely long game, and the small amount of actual dialogues you get with your companions prove... Disappointing. You see their amazing character development during their quests and you experience all of these amazing (and horrendous) things alongside them, yet you don't really feel like you ever talk it out (except for their personal quest objectives - I'll give credit where credit is due). In general, the dialogues in Pathfinder Kingmaker are limited, especially the ones related to the relationship between you and your companions (both romances and non-romances) - and in a game as long as Pathfinder Kingmaker (not just irl play-wise, but actually ingame-wise too) it just feels so odd to not have more proper dialogues with your companions. I mean, you basically live with these people alongside you for *multiple years*... A video containing *ALL* of Valerie's interactions with the player (romance run) only rounds up to 40 minutes (including the time given to read the conversations) in a game that is MORE than 50 hours (!!!) long! That's nowhere near enough, imo.
Pillars of Eternity 2 had the opposite problem, the main story line is really short and the game length relies heavily on side quests. Which is 100% fine by me! BUT, I played for ** 16 in real life hours ** in a row without a single dialogue, only to have *all companions diving me at once* as soon as I started progressing the main story quest. This bothered me so badly that I still feel salty about it - especially since literally NONE of the conversations had ANYTHING to do with the main story at all. I felt like there was literally no reason whatsoever for my companions to hold on to these conversations until we stood on an isle, right in front of our giant enemies. I would much rather have them approach me on the ship with this kind of small-talk - especially in a game that relies so heavily on DLCs and side-activities. I was so mad about this that I actually skipped one DLC-island because I was fed up with the silence.
So, regarding this matter in BG3 - I want to lift my hat off to Larian. You succeeded beyond well in all of the points above. I think you've made a very healthy balance of banter, monologues and dialogues (if I had to choose something to get more from, I'd like more monologues - as in, I want to *hear* my companions react to what is being said and done when we are questing
). Apart from that wish, the only request that I really have is that you make it more obvious when there are new dialogues available since they are easy to miss. You spent loads of resources into the voicing and writing - help your players to experience it! Put a chat icon next to characters that want to talk, and/or have them say "When we get back to camp, I'd like a word" or something similar. I would even be fine with an ingame notice hinting like "---- throws some quick glances at you - you might want to talk to them when you get back to camp."
Part two: Companions - romances. Now this part is 100% a personal preference, and I am mostly curious to see if anybody from the community agrees (or even how many disagrees) with my opinion. Something that has bothered me slightly in literally all game titles mentioned above is how the romance between the PC and a companion usually is drawn out for the entire course of the game. We're talking about ingame years of flirting and/or silence inbetween intervals and it just feels really... Odd. I would be delighted to play a game where the story didn't end with your chosen companion and you having a relationship - but rather, that if you choose to have a romantic relationship that it is PART of the story. I would give you an example, but honestly - I am not sure I have a good one. The best one I can think of is from Star Wars: The Old Republic (XD) or possibly Regongar and Octavia from Pathfinder.
Now, I'll be the first one to admit that while I - along with a fair share of the community - do not exactly approve of all companions jumping us at the goblin party (but that is supposedly fixed / to be fixed, if I remember right) - I do sincerely like the idea that you give us the option to start our romances already in act 1. I am VERY happy with this and I am very excited to see what consequences (positive and negative ones) this will have for the game story! And, I am also one of the people who enjoy having the NPC take the first step (although I think Pathfinder Kingmaker made a real good system for this as well). I can't wait to see the BG3 romance and non-romance companion story development!
Part three: Companions - group balance and class-flexibility. Most of the games mentioned at the beginning have specific classes and roles reserved to their characters. And most times, these classes and roles play a core part of the character's personality. Usually, this means that the game developers have to compensate by making more companions available - since most people prefer not having companions that feel absolutely dreadful (to the player) or companions that are a complete mismatch in terms of alignment. In DOS2, you could compensate the lack of sheer numbers of companions by them all being class-fluid. Everybody could do everything - and this resulted in you, Larian, being able to focus harder on their characteristics and character depth, since one could get a good and balanced party regardless of which companions one would choose out of the few available. In BG3 however, as far as I am aware, you've promised to focus on depth rather than sheer numbers. This might become problematic in the future considering the party balance. Now, obviously I am not going to call out disaster when the game is not even released yet - but I will admit to being slightly worried about feeling "forced" to have my main PC going for a specific group role just to be able to bring the companions I choose later on (or the opposite, bring companions I do not want for the sake of group balance). A reasonable "quick-fix" solution would be a mercenary system (like Pathfinder or PoE) - but I very much prefer to roll with NPCs in order to not miss out on the character writings.
Part four: Armor- stats vs. character fantasy One of the thing I hated most about DOS2 was the hideous armor. My characters, which was a ranger (surprise! Bet you didn't expect that!) looked NOTHING like I imagined her with her shiny blue outfit - and let's not even get into the conversation about my *ROGUE* wearing the same hideous bright blue armor. But stat-wise, I really didn't have much of an option. This has been a common occurring problem in ALL CPRGs that I've played - usually I am forced to wear an armor out of stats and usually they look nothing like the way I want to them to look ( I mean, look at the Steam Wallpaper you made for Sebille
Where is that armor? ). Since CRPGs are focused on ... Well, roleplaying, I really do not see why the MMORPG feature of transmog/outfits have been left out of the CRPG genre. While the armor in BG3 are not making me want to bundle up and cry like the DOS2 ones, I would really like some way of choosing looks without losing stats on it. Could this in any way be considered for BG3 through either an transmog or outfit system or anything similar?
Part five: Evil Should Be Profitable! One of the things that surprised me about PoE (first game primarily) was how extremely profitable it would be to do evil deeds. Without spoiling too hard, at one point at the game you handle a vast amount of souls and you can choose to consume them for a *PERMANENT* stat increase buff - this completely blew my mind. In most CRPGs, evil deeds do, more often than not, just feel like "Hey - I am a dick." It does not feel like you're trying to put your own interest above others - it simply feels like you're being a dick for the sake of being a dick. There is usually no personal profit involved and sometimes the good option is even more self-preserving than the evil option. Your tad-pod system is like Evil Path should be - easy power access. But, like many have said before me, the evil choices in the story feels more like just being mean rather than looking for self-profit.
Part six: Popular Discussions and my thoughts on them - a quick summery! Anyone who has spent time here knows about the heated discussions regarding RTwP vs. turn-based debate, the night and day debate, the silent protagonist and, of course, the resting mechanic debate.
While I might lean slightly in favor towards one or another side, my opinions on these matters are nowhere near compelling enough to grant them a section each. Regarding RTwP vs. Turn-based, I could not really care less. I've learned to deal with both of them - and as long as the combat is done properly, I see no issue adjusting to either style. Does this mean BG3s current turnbased mode is flawless? No. But there are already plenty of threads open regarding this matter.
The night and day debate is somewhat more compelling, now that I've actually played Pathfinder Kingmaker. My meta roleplaying class fantasy is a ranger which is primarily quest-active between the hours dusk till dawn (but obviously do the "regular" stuff at day-time - she just "hunts" at night), with an owl companion (the silent night hunter, yes I am cringe af BUT I'VE EMBRACED IT FOR A LONG TIME <3 ). However, I'll admit that I hardly adjust my playstyle to play combat quests exclusively at night, even in games that technically would allow this. I think all systems have their charm, and as long as it works well with the rest of the game - I do not mind even the slightest. However, I primarily discuss this on the thread assigned for these discussions, so I'll leave it at "I am not die-hard for either side, but I think that there should be some sort of concept of time - even if it is only the night-time during camps (which BG3 already has)".
Regarding the silent protagonist debate, I am probably the most boring human being there is. I am 100% fine with a fully voiced PC, if it is done "right" (do NOT take notes from GW2...). I am also fine with a partly voiced PC (as long as she doesn't randomly scream "RAWRGRGGLLHH" when attacking - LOOKING AT YOU, PoE!) and I am fine with a completely silent PC. I really do not mind
I am not even bothered by the sometimes-voiced-sometimes-not dialogues in Pathfinder - I don't even think about whenever I read or listen. HOWEVER, something more important in the case of BG3 is the FACIAL EXPRESSION OF THE PC. Please give us some option to adjust their regular face - I feel very uncomfortable with the face the BG3 PC is making sometimes, and I know for a fact that I am not alone in not recognizing my character in the weird faces they make. XD
Finally - the resting mechanic debate. So, regarding this debate it is primarily a question about how BG3 should handle short and long rests. There are many different views in the matter, all logical in their own ways. I am nowhere near experienced enough with the idea of short rests to actually participate in the discussion - but I do agree on one thing that has been brought up - being able to do long rests anywhere and everywhere without punishment is weird. Like REALLY weird. Some kind of rations system would also be great, imo. I think Larian could take a few ideas from Pathfinder Kingmaker (like so many already suggested) but I'd encourage them to add their own flavors to it.
Regarding the fact that this would affect our ability to converse with our companions (since a lot of chatter happens at camp) - I'd vote for more conversations available OUTSIDE of camp. Small conversations, such as... As... Uhm... "weneedahealer" could easily be had outside of camp - similar to how we talk to them when we first meet our companions. Whenever you choose to just have the companions' interaction screen "force" us into a conversation (like PoE) or if you'd use some kind of chat marker to show that a conversation is available makes no difference to me.
... And well, that's it I suppose. It is nowhere near as complex and compelling as many of the impressive open letters I've read from the community - but I tried.
All in all, I adore BG3. And I adore each and every single one of the CRPGs that I've played thus far - this entire genre of gaming has been eye-opening to me and I don't see myself ever stepping away from these types of games. I've learned so much from this community and am eternally grateful for the support you guys have offered and I'll do my best to repay my debt to the community as best I can.
You guys are awesome - and all of us (or at least the vast majority of us) want Larian to succeed with BG3 - so let's do our best to help them do just that.
Each of us in our own way, of course.
