Floaty weapons isn't actually something that is overly breaking for me, perhaps it's that I've spent too long playing crpgs where floaty weapons are a commonly used shortcut and it's become normalised in my mind, but I understand why it's breaking for others. It would be nice if our armour incorporated extra straps or hooks to at least try and make it look like our aren't just velcroed on. I'm also torn on the issue of backpacks, I've played older rpgs that managed to do them, but I also feel like they would cause clipping issues in BG3 and ultimately make things worse.
You are right, there are actually other immensely more immersion-breaking features present in the current iteration of the game. "Floating weapons" are just a case study, used to debate how is ludicrous to try and justify why such a thing is supposed to make sense.
We all know they are there only because Larian has not yet put time into creating more animations for the topic, and not because there is a lore reason behind it. It's bothering because we all know they have the ability and technology to do a proper animation for weapons (DOS1&2 have them and the engine is the same), this is all. I think we can all agree that the game would look nicer if one-handed weapons were sitting on the hips of characters instead of popping out from behind their heads in a quite silly fashion.
https://preview.redd.it/3xobpngr7ct...7b8b34020e53c05214c8f4d2eb4987184baad9bcAll the discussion was about the right of the customer to complain about arguably bad features, and the fact that the developers have the last word on the final build of the game (which is obvious) doesn't imply that they are making the right call.
See, I don't think that's truly conclusive though. All it does is confirm that things are strange. It's another mystery, one that potentially can happen early enough in the game that you lack any information to really extrapolate from it. Sure we can guess that what we felt was ceremorphosis being interrupted, but I don't think you get the effect if there's still uncertainty floating around. Also, just because it's different than normal doesn't mean anything firmly. It's all just adding a layer of mystery and uncertainty. My problem is that they seem to be trying to have it both ways and failing. Either keep up the sense of tension and uncertainty and design the game with that in mind, or firmly and definitively relieve the tension. Based on what they seem to want to be doing, Larian should find a way to firmly establish "we don't need to worry about changing anytime soon, we can take our time" and then postioning it so that the mystery of why is truly front and centre.
At the end of the camp scene you talk about, everyone assumes that it was just them having had a bad meal, no one knows what happened and the idea that it had to do with ceremorphosis isn't even brought up again. We as the audience can guess, and that's great for keeping us tense and wondering what's going on. But that's not catharsis. That's not a big, emotional release. That's building up the tension. Oh, we thought the big moment was here but instead it was nothing. Now we know less than we thought we did. The tension of this plotline doesn't rise to a crescendo. It rises and then fizzles out.
Exactly this. The thing that our ceremorphsis process is anomalous doesn't really mean anything, maybe it's just going to take a week more, maybe a single day more. The fact that the tadpole is "dormant" doesn't imply that it's going to stay that way indefinitely, maybe it's just going to wake up the next morning and eat our brains.
All this situation is dysfunctional for the game. The devs want us to use long rests, since a lot of content and cutscenes trigger with long rests, but the plot urges us to advance at the speed of light and rest only the strict necessary not to collapse.
It's the same problem Cyberpunk2077 has, where you have a brain killing device ticking in your head but, instead of going to solve the problem immediately, if you want to explore 90% of the content the game has to offer you need to pretend the main plot doesn't exist. The Witcher 3 had the same problem also, at least for the first half of the game, where the main plot urges you to find Ciri but instead you can just go around playing Gwent and, since you don't know if finding Ciri will end the game or not, you are going to do all the side quests first, even if it doesn't make any sense.
Having an urgent objective is an amazing plot device, but it must be used wisely. If the plot wants me to go straight from point A to point B, then please, don't put there additional content which doesn't make sense to play until point B is reached.
Also, on a side note (which was already brought up: resurrection is waaaaaaay too common and makes little sense:
1) We cannot resurrect NPCs. I know this will force Larian to write more dialogue for the resurrected NPCs, but for at least the most likely ones to be resurrected (for example, the Tiefling child killed by the snake) it should be implemented.
2) We saw that when an NPC with a tadpole like ours inside its head dies, the tadpole just runs away into the wilderness. Ok, so why when one of my characters dies can't I just wait for the tadpole to run away and then resurrect it? I mean, every one of them has at least one resurrection scroll in their inventory (absurd), plus we have an undead dude in our camp selling more of them.
I understand the need to let people resurrect their PCs, but this is not really the way to implement this feature. Resurrection is a rare and really costly spell in D&D (and in the FR), the game should reflect that. And if it chooses not to, at least make resurrection consistent with the plot/game you created (see points 1 and 2).
