Originally Posted by Maximuuus
Originally Posted by robertthebard
How else are you going to get this cast of characters to be motivated to work together? All of us start in the same place, after all. The only thing that separates us is where we land when the ship crashes. But the plot forces us together because we're all in the same boat, metaphorically, since we all have a new little friend in our heads. I'd be more outraged about that, but since it ties into the main story, I'm not sure why I should be?

The cast of character is not really the problem here. It's more about the origin system and how the multiplayer mode works imo.
The fact that everyone has the same main story, the same problem, the same introduction, the same goal is very specific to Larian games.

A druid could become a companion because he wants to learn more about the strange things he noticed right next to his grove.
A bard could become a companion because he wants to reach Baldur's Gate after being captured by goblins in the middle of nowhere.
A fighter could become a companion because you decide to help him finding a powerfull artefact in the underdark if he gives you half the reward.

You know... characters that are living in the world and have their own motivations, different goal, different introduction to the story you're writing and different reasons to eventually follow you.
Of course it does not exclude that "some" other companion(s) have a tadpole in the head.

Just like in DoS the origin characters will be more deep than the main character because the main character is just an empty box with the "common" story of everyone.

That's great, and who knows what's coming in the next two chapters? Maybe we get all of this, maybe we get none of it. It's hard to say what's going to happen from the beginning of Chapt 2 to the end of the game. Personally, and I know I'm not alone in this, I prefer my main character to be a blank slate. That allows me a lot of freedom, within the confines of the game, to do what I want with my backstory, instead of being locked into someone else's idea of what my character is, or should be, before the events that trigger the actual game. I have to admit to a bit of surprise every time I see this argument presented though, because everywhere else I play where "RPG" is part of what the game is, MMO or otherwise, "I don't want to play the developer's character" is a very common position. There was a ton of controversy in AC Odyssey about this very thing, stemming from one of the DLCs, and a situation that comes up near the end. So it confuses me to no end when I read the equivalent of "I need Larian to tell me who my character was before the events of the game". There is a solution for those specifically looking for that, play one of the Origin characters. There's nothing snarky intended there either, it's a good option to have, and adds to replay-ability, as one could choose each Origin character for a specific playthrough, as well as rolling their own. The only reason for an Origin character to be "more deep" is because the player didn't put any thought into the character other than gender and class. Especially now, with the backgrounds mattering, to some extent. At the end of the day, even if there was a "generic" storyline for Tav, it would be exactly the same as it is for every Origin character; one story to rule them all.

Originally Posted by Innateagle
Originally Posted by Firesong
I would wholeheartedly agree with the D&D people if something was taken away from them, but it clearly is not. All that BG3 does over BG2 is to make it BETTER an experience, offer more options, offer more player agency and make it a more cinematic experience.

Not even a hardcore BG fan, but comparing BG2, the Baldur's Gate everyone thinks about when they think Baldur's Gate, one of the best RPGs ever made and a game that set the foundations for all CRPGs onwards, to the glorified demo of a Dragon Age-esque game, and saying the latter provides a better Baldur's Gate experience, is just plain silly.

Except that that's not what was said? It does provide a better experience overall. As to how "BG" it is, it's really hard to say at this point, since we're plinking around in the Alpha of roughly 1/3 of the game. I say this as someone with thousands of hours in BG and Dragon Age. I mean, as a 10,000 foot generic overview, I could say "Skyrim/Oblivion" clone too. I mean, we roll a character, level them up, gain new skills, and abilities and points, etc. Doesn't that mean that all cRPGs are essentially the same game?

Interesting aside, I tend to go to BG 1 when I think BG, and I've got a lot of completions in both. BG 2 built on to what BG did, after all, meaning that BG laid that groundwork. That's highly subjective though, some will like one over the other, and it's the height of hubris to say that "this is the game everyone thinks about when they hear BG." There's no other real way to interpret your claim here other than that though. Especially when I think about BG, and the music that plays when you first find the Friendly Arm Inn springs immediately to mind.