they could really have spent those time and resources on said.. reactions? which is a very important mechanics for a dnd5e game. or said easy implementation of 5 or 6 party characters? or day and night cycle or.. resolving the chain system once and for all or.. even ya know of polishing the game and make it less DOS like and more bg..
but no... the box. i do hope while they focus on the box the valid players concerns are still being taken care of.
but no... the box. i do hope while they focus on the box the valid players concerns are still being taken care of.
Swen know he screwed up. He calls his decision bad and himself an idiot. At this point, I bet they’d be open to pitches for a fix to the MacGuffin conundrum.
but no... the box. i do hope while they focus on the box the valid players concerns are still being taken care of.
Swen know he screwed up. He calls his decision bad and himself an idiot. At this point, I bet they’d be open to pitches for a fix to the MacGuffin conundrum.
They did not learn from being overly ambitious on DOS2 at all. This is the same thing that plagued DOS2 and why it was half-baked on delivery, even the "Definitive Edition" didn't fix the issues.
This game is going to be a disappointing, buggy mess. And then you'll have to wait an extra 2 more years after release for them to overhaul and do a Definitive Edition.
This story about the box is an illustration of how difficult it can be to allow players many ways of playing the game, based on dice luck and decision making. Having many genuinly different permutations greatly improves replayability of the game, be it fully or partially. I assume many people will appreciate replayability. I think Larian should be applauded, not derided, for taking that aspect of making an RPG seriously.
Interesting. Extremely weird choice to make a character in your party mandatory and then play around trying to create the illusion it's not. I can understand it how it could work in a D&D campaign but in a game? Sven mentioned the issues itself. Ngl cutting it down to receiving that box and being forced to have it would be more obvious.
Strange they wouldn't already know that based on DOS:2 experiences. They already had quite a lot of permutations there with Loes and the demon. But making the ENTIRE GAME and dozens of cutscenes as a variable of one choice? Wtf.
I'm extremely curious about the GDC following the release. That's gonna be interesting tow atch.
Alt+ left click in the inventory on an item while the camp stash is opened transfers the item there. Make it a reality.
My players always joke with me about a game session of Star Wars where they in no way planned on going to the planet I wanted them to go to in order to continue the story.
So I literally had a hyperspace malfunction which caused them to hit a meteor and then crash down onto the planet. To this day they say things like, "is this one of those situations where you are going to crash the starship into the planet,"and we all laugh about it and have a good time.
I do admire their dedication to giving players a choice, but I do wish that they had spent more time on things that would make the game better and more immersive. I wish they had just crashed the starship into the planet with the box rather than allow players to have the choice.
This story about the box is an illustration of how difficult it can be to allow players many ways of playing the game, based on dice luck and decision making. Having many genuinly different permutations greatly improves replayability of the game, be it fully or partially. I assume many people will appreciate replayability. I think Larian should be applauded, not derided, for taking that aspect of making an RPG seriously.
100% agree. This is a game that has already given me plenty of entertainment, and I enjoy replaying it, even in early access.
I also want to say how refreshing it is to read something positive here. There's generally a sea of negativity from folks who apparently know all the answers.
This game is going to be a disappointing, buggy mess. And then you'll have to wait an extra 2 more years after release for them to overhaul and do a Definitive Edition.
If I were guaranteed that BG3 hit its full potential, I’d be willing to wait half a decade.
I agree that DOS2 has issues even after all this time. I quit halfway through because of all of the low impact admin involved with leveling up.
But I really like 5e. Even if EA doesn’t improve the game that much, I’d still play it as a fun tactical spell ‘em up.
Originally Posted by Ikke
Having many genuinly different permutations greatly improves replayability of the game, be it fully or partially. I assume many people will appreciate replayability. I think Larian should be applauded, not derided, for taking that aspect of making an RPG seriously.
While I understand the appeal of how reactive Larian RPGs can be, that aspect doesn’t do all that much for me. I find the variations boil down to fight or no fight. Also, most of the game time revolves around combat. Therein lies replayabilty for me. As long as party members are restricted, my playthroughs will all feel the same.
Being called over-ambitious isn't the worst thing. But This is such a trope of D&D story-telling that seeing them fall into this narrative trap is a little suspect. It's a video game, there will be a script, but there are many more elegant ways of working around plot essential items.
I am glad that Larian is being ambitious and pushing boundaries. More devs need to do that to keep setting the bar higher and higher. If BG3 releases a little buggy that is okay. If it is a disaster with game breaking bugs then that will not be okay.
I personally think they have prioritized some things that they shouldn't have. The ability to get into a cinematic conversation with every single person in the world seems overboard. I think it is a great feature for any NPC with legitimate dialogue options, quests, etc... but I see no problem with being able to just click on an NPC and if there is nothing significant coming from them then they just say a one liner or something like that. I imagine just cutting that out would have saved a ton of time and dev costs. It's cool, I think it s a neat feature... it's just something I would add as kind of "one of the last features" as opposed to making it a "top priority item".
That is to say, I think they should have moved forward with development and if they were ahead of schedule or feeling good about it - include it. If not just leave it out and if you want to add it later if the game sells well include it in the definitive edition or something like that.
Also - if there is a character that needs to be in your party I think they botched the writing. Just make that character's item or something like that essential for their personal quest or whatever, but not to the overarching story. I find it hard to believe that they can't accomplish that with their writing staff... but then again I don't know the entire story yet and don't care to be spoiled.
I also think a lot of it has to do with origin characters. They had to ensure that SH and the box would be in the story regardless of who you decide to be - Gale, Astarion, Lae'zel...
Especially Lae'zel. SH smarts off to me as her... Says she hates Gith.
Having many genuinly different permutations greatly improves replayability of the game, be it fully or partially. I assume many people will appreciate replayability. I think Larian should be applauded, not derided, for taking that aspect of making an RPG seriously.
Those are not genuinly differenet permutations, though. It's a game awkwardly retconing player's actions so it's intended plot can progress. I see two main issues: 1) Some narrative progressions are inferior and unsatisfying - I personally experienced bit where
box just appears in your hand when nearning the map exit
. It didn't feel good - from linear narrative perspective, and player choice. I can imagine how weird it is if you never meet Shadowheart like in the video. 2) It's a lot of work to ensure the player has the thing. It's expensive, it's inelegant, and it still doesn't feel natural or good. "make sure player has/understand the thing before..." is a classic issue - this is just a not good way of handling it. It's work that could be spend implementing proper reactivity - the one that responds to players choice and gives feedback to PC actions, rather then retconing them. It reminds me of Alexander from D:OS2 - a guy you can kill multiple times throughout the game, you even get one "scripted" moment to kill him or spare him, and the game constantly retcons it, because at some point it was decided that he is critical to the story. This is a horrible implementation of "plot armor".
The notion of tying oneself in knots comes to mind.
If an object is integral to your story, then make damn sure the player has a strong reason to seek it and/or keep it. The plot of The Lord of the Rings comes to mind; if Frodo loses the Ring, the permutations are potentially enormous.
The problem is, they're trying to pretend that we can do anything we want, but they also made a very specific box absolutely required for a plot point, and attached it to a character, so now we have this character that is either stalking us, and seems more important than other characters, or a magic box that just follows us around. Neither one feels like we have a choice.
I agree with the above post, if you want to make something integral, then they should make it an important part of getting healed, or protected, or something. As it is, it was just SH's secret, and so if you don't like SH, you don't care about the box. it's frustrating how they decided to present this.
The problem is, they're trying to pretend that we can do anything we want, but they also made a very specific box absolutely required for a plot point, and attached it to a character, so now we have this character that is either stalking us, and seems more important than other characters, or a magic box that just follows us around. Neither one feels like we have a choice.
I agree with the above post, if you want to make something integral, then they should make it an important part of getting healed, or protected, or something. As it is, it was just SH's secret, and so if you don't like SH, you don't care about the box. it's frustrating how they decided to present this.
Agreed.
Also, if you are going to make a character or an object they possess that important then you should put that character in the position of someone like Malady from D:OS2 rather than an actual companion.
So dissapointing video lol. It really looks like they don't really know what they're doing...
Quote
Suddenly you can fall on your knees and you're going to need that box and shadowheart is going to pop up - "I'm here, with the bowx in my hand... use this box to protect you" and you say - "who the hell are you ?" "I followed you and I saw you"...
So it's really ridiculous dialog that really doesn't make that much sense but it works.
It might still change but at this moment that's the best that we have.
Stop trying to re-invent the wheel on so many things Larian. You don't need that to create good games.
I would say the best way to handle it is to just not give the player a choice. Have your player pick it up, and "put it somewhere safe". It doesn't appear in the inventory, and the player pulls it out of their ass whenever it's required for the plot. Other rpgs do that all the time, it doesn't have to be a "omg, i can't throw this thing away" item, but as it is now, they've tried to give the players choices for every little thing, and written themselves into weird corners where SH just pops out of nowhere "tada!!!! box!", which is worse imo.
Or if Shadowheart doesn't come with you, have her taken to Moonrise, where we're heading anyway. Or have the Absolute's mind link work...putting us on the path of looking for The Weapon. there are so many ways you could write around this that don't involve, falling rocks.
As it is, I will say that characters who aren't interested in everything related to their tadpole and the absolute can be said to be working against their own best interest. Waving a mysterious box under our noses is enough for most people to be interested, but it becomes a little unseemly when you start doing it repeatedly, before violently clobbering us over the head with it.
I would say the best way to handle it is to just not give the player a choice. Have your player pick it up, and "put it somewhere safe". It doesn't appear in the inventory, and the player pulls it out of their ass whenever it's required for the plot. Other rpgs do that all the time, it doesn't have to be a "omg, i can't throw this thing away" item, but as it is now, they've tried to give the players choices for every little thing, and written themselves into weird corners where SH just pops out of nowhere "tada!!!! box!", which is worse imo.
Definitely what I was thinking about when I said "stop trying to re-invent the wheel".
Just put this artefact at the end of the tutorial. The player take it because it looks important. Some characters are looking for it so our character understand more and more that it is important. A few "permutations" are still eventually allowed - i.e you can give it to the gythianky but they try to kill you even if you gave them... so game over OR after the fight, they're dead and you take it back.
