I've looked at other up and coming d&d games, but even though some of them looked very promising visually (There's a new dark alliance, I think?), the discovery that we would just be playing existing characters - no matter how famous or special - completely removed my desire to play them at all. I just lost all real interest, because for me it wouldn't feel like playing D&D, or be able to answer the whole point of WHY I go to a D&D game. It might be a great game and very enjoyable (and I'm sure I would!), but if my itch is for a D&D game, it won't be able too scratch it.
The thing is, when I'm in the mood for the sort of game that it is, I'll probably go and look at it, and when I do, I'll enjoy it - but I won't think of it as a D&D game, not really - just a very good video game set in the forgotten realms.
Here's the really interesting part:
Is there was NO custom character available AT ALL in BG3... if it was JUST "Pick Your Character" and then a selection from between each of the origin characters, and a blurb provided for each one... I would be far, far less critical of it, because it wouldn't be trying to make itself out to bee something it's not. It wouldn't really feel like playing a D&D game - but I might enjoy it if the story was good and the gameplay was solid.
However, because there is the ability to make your own character, it is making a claim to a type of game that it ultimately fails to be, when that character is a blank empty nothing with no attachment to the story, and which only serves to highlight how the origin characters - who are still there and in your face regardless - are much more awesome than her... it fails, and fails hard, as well as creating story-telling dissonance.
It need sot either be the player character, and available companions - who are only companions, and not the player character... Or it needs to be a selection of fixed main characters, of whom we only choose one, and that has major impact on the game as a whole and the experience of playing through Their story, as opposed to someone else's.
I'm not saying it's impossible to do both, but the crux of the problem is this: I need to feel like my character is tied to the story in their own unique way; I lead the party and I make our decisions, and there's got to be a reason why I am doing that, in amongst all the other strong personalities, even if I, by character, am unassuming and unassertive; the reason must be potent and present enough to cover this. If there is no unique factor that ties my character to the story in a way that the others are not so-tied, then my character's reason for existing at all falls apart, in the scope of the game.
If any origin character can hop into the lead role without anything changing, then it seems like there's nothing to support the existence of my character and their participation in the plot - especially when all those special characters are still there and still have all of their own special plot connections going on. If, on the other hand, something does change, and does set me apart as being tied to the plot in a unique way that the others are not... then we have the problem that the player character becomes a non-entity in a different way - that is, if any origin can hop into their shoes, assume the role of leader, and inherit the special unique plot-tie that makes them so, and still has their own stuff going on As Well, then the player character is an automatically inferior and less interesting choice, because they just have a blank empty nothingness where the origins have their personal stories. This is the problem that BG3 has right now. By trying to do both sets of things at the same time, they shoot themselves in the foot and cut their own legs out from under themselves.
Alright before I actually answer, let me say this. There are a few things here that don't quite land with me, at least for what I understand rpgs to be capable of. I don't assume that you need to be the leader of the group, I don't even need to be main character in the story. I've commented on this elsewhere, on topics that actually had to do with this, but the game needs to come up with, or at least drive home better, why all these miserable people are working together, possibly with a few scenes dealing with everyone's conflicting egos. We're given a reason
The Tadpole its mystery and peril compel everyone to work together, but the game doesn't really feel the need to justify further, I think because in a meta way they understand this is what people are playing the game for, it's a adventure story, join up or be bored. As far as I can remember, apart from the banter walking around, none of the camp conversations occur with anyone other than the MC, assuming the the MC could be any origin character it isn't a stretch for every origin character to have conversations with each other. Particularly egregious is the conversation between the Kithrak and Lae'zel, where some nobody who probably isn't even a Gith decides
if Lae'zel speaks and even, to a certain extent, what she says. In your game Lae'zel does this because Tav (for reasons that make him the main character) is the biggest swinging dick in the party, in mine, Tav doesn't have total control over the conversation because its a story about multiple characters each with their own histories and motivations, I'd be interested to know which you find the more interesting.
This is kind of what I was referring to earlier, I don't think it's necessary for one person to be the main character in this story, Tav can be Aragorn, Frodo, or Sam. If this were a Lord of the Rings game, would you be against the option to play any one of the fellowship? ... can we start a new thread talking about a LotRs crpg.
More on topic. It's also possible that because we know the personalities of each origin character while they're not being 'piloted' people assume that they'll be forced to play them that way. If DOS:II is anything to go by that won't be the case. So there being so 'in your face' is exactly how they'd be as companions, you could see that as a failing because you could be playing as them, but you're only experiencing that as a custom character. That on its own is one of the more compelling reasons to play as Tav.
As for connecting Tav to the story, this is kind of contradictory to me, for me connecting Tav to the story is making him have a history, either one you're not going to have control over, or one contrived in the moment for you to be a part of, it's like saying, I'd like the backstory of Shadowheart, but I'd like to customize her appearance, race, class, and personality. I'm not against that, I've wanted ways to flesh out Tav's character, but I don't see that as an either or situation with the origin characters, unlike what I keep seeing around here, calling out how resources are used at Larian isn't a compelling argument for game design, I'm just a consumer, their business acumen doesn't concern me, they should be able to do all of the above.
And finally, things having to do with the story in the EA, are still in flux, it's clearly not a priority for the EA for us to test the story
