|
veteran
|
veteran
Joined: Dec 2020
|
I don't remember who mentioned it a while ago (Niara maybe?), but someone not me mentioned making whoever you chose as your playthrough the "chosen one", and the others at that point taking a more supporting role. For me, that would automatically make my custom character more important, while still letting the origin characters shine if you chose to play as them.
That said, if i have to choose, i would choose No Gen all the way. despite some people's insistence that D&D is just full of a bunch of people playing pre-generated characters beyond just being newbies, I can't imagine playing a table top role playing game without my own character.
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
veteran
Joined: Oct 2021
|
I don't remember who mentioned it a while ago (Niara maybe?), but someone not me mentioned making whoever you chose as your playthrough the "chosen one", and the others at that point taking a more supporting role. For me, that would automatically make my custom character more important, while still letting the origin characters shine if you chose to play as them.
That said, if i have to choose, i would choose No Gen all the way. despite some people's insistence that D&D is just full of a bunch of people playing pre-generated characters beyond just being newbies, I can't imagine playing a table top role playing game without my own character. I truly hope they don't go this direction. I don't think I can handle another "chosen one" plot line. I'm okay with not being the only tadpole infected character. It doesn't make me feel like I'm sharing a spotlight. I'm just trying to play through a story here. A handful of unlikely allies are brought together because they're in the same condition and looking for a way out. I like that. Having companions. All of us seeking the same goal. I don't need (or rather, I don't want) to feel like a chosen one with companions who are slightly less than me.
|
|
|
|
old hand
|
old hand
Joined: Dec 2020
|
Many folk are not okay with that, and wish to voice that they are not; that they do not wish for that to be the case. That is the feedback they are offering. I would personally appreciate it if you'd refrain from attacking anyone who says as much, please. I also want to add to this, I think certain things are far too set in stone for any feedback to result in any meaningful change, the Origin system being at the very foremost. But this type of constant discussion will at least serve as a case study for future projects and developers to consider when it turns out that what we foresaw in terms of the long term effects on various aspects of the game ends up being completely accurate, and we had been arguing in circles about this for 2+ years prior to the game's release. You know, like what the people who argued about the armor system in DOS2 EA tried to warn everyone about. On the subject of DOS2 EA, checking the oldest posts in the DOS2 general section is a pretty eye opening experience. For instance, you had this thread where people were arguing about the single player VS multiplayer experience in DOS2 EA, and it later segues into the subject of the party members all being sourcerers with no one that's relatively more 'normal', which is basically a mirror argument about the party members in BG3. (And apparently some form of the infamous 'your only party members are the ones that escape the Fort with you/everyone not in your party at that moment dies or meets an uncertain fate' existed during the earliest phases of the EA too.) https://forums.larian.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=569368&page=1This thread tells me that the earlier phases of DOS2 EA actually didn't really have custom characters, we would just edit the origin characters to some extent. Maybe the people asking for full custom characters should have never expected an experience equal that of the origins, really. That's not to say that we should expect the same to be true for BG3. If anything, one would think people have higher standards this time around. https://forums.larian.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=584584#Post584584A thread raising the alarm about murderhoboing everyone in DOS2. Granted, DOS2 is very possible to clear without it (I've never had to do it during any of my playthroughs), but there's no denying that doing it gives you an edge in that game. There's no need to do it in BG3 at the moment though, especially because power spikes in DnD are concentrated around specific levels (especially the coveted level 5) rather than every level being an equal boost in power. https://forums.larian.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=582255#Post582255
Last edited by Saito Hikari; 23/11/21 08:56 AM.
|
|
|
|
old hand
|
old hand
Joined: Oct 2020
|
I think people have a problem with one. In fact, there is no single main character in the game, such as in WotR. The game is designed from scratch for multiplayer, which means that instead of one single hero, we have a whole team.
Another thing is that you can't make a custom character equal to Origins. This is simply not feasible without turning the custom character into another Origins character (this time in the ligth version). The Origins system allows you to create characters that have an established place in the story, with a certain personality (although fluid). From what I've seen, Origins characters have quite a lot of unique interactions that would not be possible for non-standard characters, at least not without a huge amount of work or cutting a large number of choices in character creation. Probably the only characters it would be possible with are Astarion and Lae'zel (mainly because I didn't see what these characters have)
|
|
|
|
old hand
|
old hand
Joined: Dec 2020
|
I think it is possible this time around, actually, but it would be entirely dependent on background tags actually being worked on. Right now, custom characters only have a Baldurian tag, and it's pretty barebones - but it will probably see a lot of use once we actually reach Baldur's Gate.
But I also see other possible background tags getting use in ways that none of the origins would ever have access to. We are unlikely to have another Waterdhavian origin, so a custom character from Waterdeep would have a lot of unique interactions with Gale that absolutely none of the origins could experience, for instance. Especially if Larian somehow pivots and decides to pursue WotR-level party banter, where the entire party would suddenly decide that they actually care about what's going on to the point where they'll directly address each other about it too, instead of merely standing awkwardly behind you. That opens up the potential for your custom character and Gale to sass the hell out of everyone together.
(Seriously, the party interactions from WotR are top tier, and we would be blessed to ever have another game with that insane level of party involvement and banter ever again.)
Last edited by Saito Hikari; 23/11/21 09:24 AM.
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
veteran
Joined: Oct 2021
|
All the tags in the world won't so much as get the game to say your custom character's name out loud.
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
veteran
Joined: May 2019
|
As the original poster of that thread, I’m OK with where it went. It generated a lot of dialogue and feedback that may be helpful for Larian to consider for either the original release or for expansions.
I am of the camp that is OK with having the Origin players as an option, but not at the expense of making the Custom players less special in comparison. I’d also like more NPCs available to join your party that are not Origin characters. Appreciate you saying this, and fully share your view of how things should be in the game.
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
veteran
Joined: May 2019
|
In my opinion, worrying that the Origin characters will ultimately overshadow Tav is barking at the moon.
Of course they will. Many folk are not okay with that, and wish to voice that they are not; that they do not wish for that to be the case. That is the feedback they are offering. I would personally appreciate it if you'd refrain from attacking anyone who says as much, please. +1000 I fully agree with your entire post, but especially wanted to highlight this issue.
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
veteran
Joined: Oct 2021
|
In my opinion, worrying that the Origin characters will ultimately overshadow Tav is barking at the moon.
Of course they will. Many folk are not okay with that, and wish to voice that they are not; that they do not wish for that to be the case. That is the feedback they are offering. I would personally appreciate it if you'd refrain from attacking anyone who says as much, please. +1000 I fully agree with your entire post, but especially wanted to highlight this issue. I haven't attacked anyone. I have shared my disagreement in an effort to provide feedback to Larian. If anything, I feel I have consistently been attacked, mostly with efforts to quiet me when I disagree with an established group of posters here who have, in my opinion, monopolized the discussion and chased out others who disagree by making the environment uncomfortable. I have been told that I shouldn't argue against the position to get rid of the chaining system. I have been told that my opinion is disingenuous. I have been accused of being a spy working for Larian because I disagree with some of the complaints. The list of attacks like this against me, as a newcomer to this forum, goes on. I can pull together quite a few more examples. Ironically, this particular message is coming from a poster I have on ignore because they were--in my opinion--attacking me, insisting they really knew my underlying motivations for supporting the way a romance scene was written in the game. I found it to be incredibly insulting, out of line, and aggressive, so I utilized the option to ignore, and haven't regretted it once. As such, this is the first time I've seen this message, and only because it was quoted here. Let me say this as simply as I can: I accept that other people have different opinions. I am not asking anyone to stop sharing their opinions. I am interested in sharing my opinions in return. If I should happen to disagree with someone, that does not equate to an attack. I appreciate it when other people accept my opinions as being my legitimate opinions. I also appreciate it when people know the difference between objective and subjective matters. Furthermore, I am open to discussion. I am capable of changing my mind when someone else makes a solid case, and I would hope that others here are, as well. Thank you.
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
veteran
Joined: Feb 2020
|
I have been told that I shouldn't argue against the position to get rid of the chaining system. That's not true. You have been told by "a group of posters" that you shouldn't argue against facts, not that you couldn't tell your personnal preferencies. Anyway this is not the thread. I should probably not have written that. I can edit if necessary.
Last edited by Maximuuus; 23/11/21 07:09 PM.
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
OP
veteran
Joined: Oct 2020
|
I think there's plenty of evidence that JandK was being hazed on the forum. So I find his behavior understandable. I've seen people retreat to the "subjective/objective" canard enough to find its use to defend harassment troubling. So don't tell people they're arguing against facts. It's just a nonstarter, if you really feel that way, just move on.
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
veteran
Joined: Jul 2014
|
As the original poster of that thread, I’m OK with where it went. Kudos.
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
veteran
Joined: Feb 2020
|
I think there's plenty of evidence that JandK was being hazed on the forum. So I find his behavior understandable. I've seen people retreat to the "subjective/objective" canard enough to find its use to defend harassment troubling. So don't tell people they're arguing against facts. It's just a nonstarter, if you really feel that way, just move on. When someone claim that facts are wrong and/or that they doesn't matter at all, he should expect reactions. Especially when those facts matter for most people in this specific thread.
Last edited by Maximuuus; 23/11/21 09:14 PM.
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
veteran
Joined: Sep 2017
|
Opinions aren't facts, Maximuuus. There are individuals on here who will bash arguments over other peoples heads until they submit or go away. I'm losing patience with this behavior. Even if something is dominantly leaning in one direction in terms of opinions on something, opposing opinions aren't wrong just because of "Majority thinks this, so it must be fact." - Example being if anyone says they genuinely enjoyed Cyberpunk 2077, mentioning specifics that CDPR has gotten lots of flack for, the only correct answer if you disagree to their enjoyment is "Good for you, wish I could say the same". You do not get to beat them down with big words and angry strawmans, disingenuine takes or gaslighting just because you disagree. I say this as someone who also has a bunch of criticism and things to say about origins/companions/customs and the party management system (it works for me but that doesn't mean I don't have changes I'd like to see made to it). I am ready to start suspending people over contributing to a negative and antagonistic environment. This is a general statement to several people across the boards, consider it a warning starting now. If all you have to contribute is to fight amongst one another just because you disagree or mix up opinion with fact, then the best thing is to take a step back and just move on. The game has origins system and a party management system; That's a fact. What you think of either of those, is always an opinion, no matter how many or few shares those opinions. In my opinion, worrying that the Origin characters will ultimately overshadow Tav is barking at the moon.
Of course they will. Many folk are not okay with that, and wish to voice that they are not; that they do not wish for that to be the case. That is the feedback they are offering. I would personally appreciate it if you'd refrain from attacking anyone who says as much, please. == On the topic of defining and fleshing out our characters, and others discussing whether and how we do or could get a chance to really do that, here's this for though: We undergo a great many interesting events throughout the early game, but wee never get to comment on them. We can decide for ourselves how we feel about various things, but we never get a chance to tell The Game this. In some of these cases, we get engaged in conversation with our companions, where they characterise themselves and their opinions on the matter - where they get to show us how they feel about these events and develop their characters... but we never get to do this in return - it's all always about them. It could be otherwise. Some of you may have read my suggestion in a couple of places about how an intro and game tutorial could run in a way that blended with the current opening sequence, to give us a chance to learn basic mechanics and define elements of our character at the same time. - Well, that doesn't need to stop outside of the intro. Sequences that let us define elements of our character that the game can remember should continue, more regularly in the early game and increasingly sparse save for major events as the game progresses. One very good example is the Tadpole Dream. After one of the dreams, the game, though Shadowheart, tells us that we gave in to our 'lover' and were intimate with them. We don't get to decide on this score, it's just the statement of fact - Nothing we say in the dream itself changes this, apparently, and if we deny it, Shadow tells us that they all saw and were all aware, and that they all know what happened. So, this... and, to Larian, in case you're reading... Just a note... This is a Fucking Massive Violation of our character. Because here's the thing: If I am playing a character that would not willingly choose to share intimacy with pretty dream stranger who is incredibly creepy in their advances, and then I do so anyway, it doesn't matter that it's 'just a dream' and it doesn't matter if they 'made me feel willing at the time' with whatever dream influence was used... that entity is not just a figment; they are a real, actual entity, with real actual intelligence behind whatever they're showing us, and that entity just raped me. But we don't get to react or respond in any way that tells the game how we feel about this. We're just blank, while Shadow condescends to us about our 'choices'. We Could use this conversation to convey to the game how we think our character feels about this intrusion and violation; are they deeply hurt and upset by it; do they feel violated, raped even; was the worst part of it the theft of their free will and the forced compulsion of their mind to act in ways they wouldn't? Are they just annoyed and upset by it, and think the daisy is a nasty piece of work whom they have no intention of interacting with further, but aren't particularly scarred by the unpleasant inexperience? Are they perhaps fine with it, because in the end, it was just a dream, or so it seems, no matter how unwilling their participation in it was. Are they perhaps more upset by Shadow's accusations and assumptions about how they feel about the encounter, rather than the event itself? Those are just some negative experience options that we could inform the game of, which may alter how we can respond to the daisy in future dreams if we have any. That might be one branch, out of several: a dialogue tree with the interviewing companion where we can first indicate whether the experience was negative/non-consenting, neutral/just a bit of fun, or positive/wilful/enjoyable, and from that as they ask us further to elaborate, we can describe more closely how we feel about the event. Showing the game, and the game world, who we are as characters is such an important part of the game experience because it helps create that feeling of a living being, existing in a living world, and connects us to it through a character that we genuinely feel like we are communicating the definitions of, and being seen. Even if some, or even a lot, of those decisions don't have notable impacts on the game - as long as enough of them do, what matters is getting the chance to tell people, and being acknowledged for it. Even before that - we never get much chance to talk to other companions about how we, as characters, feel about this whole tadpole event - more chance to communicate to the game, by way of our companions, how we as a character feel about that and think about that, would go a long way. Thank you for the write up Just wanted to mention that I've found the time to sit down and properly digest your other post from several weeks back too, didn't have the opportunity to back then. [...] and we had been arguing in circles about this for 2+ years prior to the game's release. Baldur's Gate 3 was announced with a teaser trailer a little over a year before release. So 2+ years prior is impossible. Now that's a fact. Based on the teaser, there was no actual gameplay information or design details to base such discussions upon. A year prior would be a very generous estimate, at best.
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
veteran
Joined: Feb 2020
|
Opinions aren't facts, Maximuuus. Numbers and "bugs" are.
Last edited by Maximuuus; 23/11/21 09:43 PM.
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
veteran
Joined: Sep 2017
|
Opinions aren't facts, Maximuuus. Numbers are. Which numbers in relation and context to earlier arguments that are declared as fact instead of opinion?
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
veteran
Joined: Sep 2020
|
As the original poster of that thread, I’m OK with where it went. It generated a lot of dialogue and feedback that may be helpful for Larian to consider for either the original release or for expansions.. This is something I do like (and is somewhat unavoidable given the ancient & basic format of this forum) about the threads: they can go off into tangential discussions which are sometimes more (or at least differently) interesting than the original topic. E.g., that one WotR thread that started off with the OP ranting about Larian's wokeness in BG3, but whos thread morphed into mostly interesting discussion about definition of a crpg/rpg, measuring success for crpgs, game difficulty and difficulty options, game/system complexity, and alignment to name a few. Of course this can also be a downside, when people get caught in a discussion that dominates the thread and is ~uninteresting to read or completely off-topic. If that goes on for more than a page, that's the time when some moderation would probably be helpful. But I think the freedom to discuss tangential topics is well worth the risk of this. And of course "uninteresting to read" is an opinion and the topic might be interesting to some.
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
veteran
Joined: Feb 2020
|
Opinions aren't facts, Maximuuus. Numbers are. Which numbers in relation and context to earlier arguments that are declared as fact instead of opinion? Nothing in this thread. I was answering to a reference to another one. Sorry about that, I'm out this one.
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
veteran
Joined: Jul 2014
|
Which numbers in relation and context to earlier arguments that are declared as fact instead of opinion? Just to stick to your own example of choice, “I like CP2077 anyway” and “CP2077 is fine as it is, there are no real problems with it” are two VERY different statements.
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
veteran
Joined: Dec 2020
|
I think it's important to note that when an individual only seems to respond to people and disagree with them and doesn't ever seem to have anything other than "you can pretend all you want x is true, but i disagree, prove me wrong" style of comments, it doesn't lend itself to good conversation.
that said, ignoring said person is a great way of not having to deal with them. if someone has shown that they're not looking for actual discussion, just don't engage with them.
|
|
|
|
|