Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - General No middle ground?

+1!

True ... except:

1) This only apply to games where you have Voiced Protagonist ...
Wich we dont have so far, and i personaly see no evidence (nor any reason) for that being planned in the future.
Also if that would be the case ... just by giving us Origin characters, Larian would blow this budged bubble 6 times biger allready (amoung of text * amount of voice actors) ... and Swen himself allready told us that we still dont have all followers ... so probably even more.

So if their goal is to cheapen the game ... maybe scratch out few sentneces wouldnt be so effective as reducing number of voice actors needed?

2) It was allready discuised abowe, that people would mostly dont mind if several responces would lead to same outcome ...
Meaning (again as long as our protagonist stay silent during dialogues ... wich i hope they would for various reasons) all we would add for nuances would be some text.

I dunno if this would be good example but try to imagine it as it is with when Withers asks you about cost of single mortal life ... it dont really matter what you say to him, his responce is allways the same "Very well. I am satisfied" ...
Yes i know there are some comentaries aswell, but are they really needed?



Yeah ...
I gues that was the original point i was trying to make.

Just chill out from time to time, not everything needs to be question of life and death ... not everyone needs to be kept on edge from falling to both metaphorical or litteral abyss everytime they are questioned if they want Ketchup or Mayonaise.

Larian have stated that they intend for the protagonist to be fully voice-acted, so unless we're assuming that they've scrapped that promise without telling us, that part of Bird Person's comment stands true enough, unfortunately.

(Personally, I *Am* assuming that that's another element on the pile of Larian talking big and then realising they way over-promised and can't deliver what they said they would...)

I wouldnt call it over-promising or under-delivering ...
I would call it realizing their misstake, and changing their design acording to what people ARE actively asking for at their feedback forum. :P

Same as party-wide turn based system ... same as worldwide reputation gains and looses ... same as basicaly everything that was changed since EA started.

The intention to add protagonist full VO is the only way I can see current design making sense. Choices are few, lines we get a bland, and devoided of personality, cinematics are awkward with our protagonist's blank stare. Add VO, ala. Dragon Age Inquisition, and things start clicking into place. Full VO protagonist is not what I ideally want, but I feel it would be best for the game as is.

I would admit its possible scenario ...

Other one (and i have no idea wich is more probable) is that there is nothing to test on another dialogue choices ... Larian noticed we want them, but didnt add them to EA version of the game, since we were told that there WILL be differences between EA and final release ...
Bcs lets be honest for a second, this is far from the only topic on this matter, we are complaining about it for a while now ... so they should certainly "know" ... the question is if they will acnowledge and act acordingly.

And i certainly disagree with statement its "the best for the game as is" ...
Full VO is never good thing ever, unless you have set character, with set personality, and set amount of reactions of wich you pick ... if you wish to create roleplaying game where people are creating their own characters, VO is no matter the intention the worse thing that can happen. :-/

Reasons were stated in the past countless times ...
Beginning by cost and limited amount of options (due to that incerased cost) ... continuing through unfitting voices for certain characters ... and ending with thousands uppon thousands nuances we (meaning human beings) express by just our tone when we say anything, that is litteraly impossible to cover. :-/

Well regarding voiced protagonist and narration... datamining spoilers ahead open at your own risk

As far as i remember (and it is possible that i confuse it with something)
What you mention was only picked together from some lefovers from previous patches ... like something Larian intedned to do ... but then decided differently and leave the idea. O_o

I believe it was explained here:

Again ... unless i confuse it with soemthing else.

So it was scrapped?

I don't think there's any way to know for sure at this point :P

It certainly seems so ...
But as you say, the only one who actualy knows is Swen. And he wont tell.

The difference is communication; if they change their mind about a feature that was earlier stated to be happening, and they *don't* tell the testers that it is no longer happening, thenYes, it is over-promising and under-delivering. If they Tell us that this is an element that they've realised they can't achieve satisfactorily and are redirecting their resources, then that would be them changing design direction. Communication makes the difference here, and as of yet, the last word we've had from Larian is that the custom PC will be fully voiced... and if they have decided not to do that, but don't tell us so before release, then it is a broken promise.

I don't WANT a fully voiced PC - especially not if our only voice options for barks is going to remain two different flavours of modern brittish accents. I'd MUCH rather they give us a more diverse set of base voice templates for our in-game barks, to cover a broad variety of voice types... and if they aren't giving the pc full voice acting, confirm that this is the case now!

Well, it also matters if you're having NPCs responding with voiced, unique dialogue as well. Which leads into...


But yeah, I hear you on that. And that's one of the "creative" options they could have pursued - either have responses be the same even with multiple options or have subtle permutations that wouldn't require them to break the bank on the VA budget. One thing I will say, however, is that a lot of developers express that they don't like this approach i.e. if the choices you make result in the same outcome then the choices are bad and should be changed or streamlined. It's one way of cutting the dreaded "bloat" and making "choices matter" and all those other cliches. What is missed is that even if the end result is just 'flavor', that adds something to the world if the clear choices and decision points are still there. I liken it to a completely different kind of game (Morrowind), where all of these tomes and small details exist to create a cohesive and interesting world. Nowadays a lot of developers would see that as unnecessary bloat and so touches like that are fewer and farther between.

There's something to be said for using such details to create an atmosphere and a mood, but I'm afraid it's a hard skill to master. Typically it's easier to just say "nope we're just going to stick to the cut-and-dry, this one or that one" and attempt to create an atmosphere via more grandiose (or extreme, as you say) means. As a bit of an aside, I absolutely love "moody" horror films (think The Thing) for this reason. The tension and the "grip" of the film isn't based on the action set pieces, it's based on all the seemingly benign interactions and movement of the players that combine to create an overwhelming sense of dread/anticipation.


Yeah, that was mostly me agreeing with you and adding context. Unfortunately, especially for writers who are not exceptionally skilled, it can be hard to do nuance and the mundane truly well. So if it's something that you feel is just adding bloat and the "bad kind" of ambiguity to your story you're often just going to leave those elements out. What a lot of writers/writing struggle with and overlook is that people, events, environments are defined just as much by the small, seemingly insignificant moments as they are by the loud, in-your-face, exceptional ones. People often get more out of a subtle tilt of the head, a small gesture, or simple question/statement than a bombastic display. It's part of the reason a lot of people love games like Stardew Valley or Animal Crossing. There's beauty and texture - a lot of it! - to be found in mundanity, subtlety.

But I can't really harp on Larian too hard for this because even well-known and respected authors struggle with this kind of writing. And video game writing rarely reaches even the level of pulp fantasy/scifi.

Not really relevant to me.
I didnt asked why would you, or why it would be technicaly, or grammatically correct ... i simply stated that i would not, and i would still not ... :-/

---

True ...
Except this problem is allready here ...

What does it matter what do you say to Whiters? (It dont.) ...
What does it matter what do you say to Astarion after he attack you? (It dont.) ...
What does it matter what do you say to that Tiefling kid vendor, whos asociate steal from you? (It dont.) ...
What does it matter if you try (and manage) to save Marina's Brothers, or that Tiefling girl blinded with revenge? (It dont.) ...
And im sure there are other examples.

So if that would be Larian excuse, it would really be poor one. :-/

Thats the point of this topic tho, isnt it?
To show them that choices still matter, even if you have several ways to make them.

I mean ...
Im not asking for adding another outcomes, i just think that if intention of writers is to provide me a choice to kill somebody ...
I can do it without a single thought, i can do with happily, or i can asure him its nothing personal, i can also express that im sad it comes so far, or i can be extra asshole and tell them that his dear ones will be next ...

Its still single choice ...
That choice still matters ...
The only difference is all the nuances that allows me to express my character.

And that is exactly what is missed if all i can get instead is "Attack".

Well if that is the case, then concider this topic to be a feedback message telling them its not working well. :-/

I dont mind high stakes and serious business ...
It just dont work well for me if its all the time, when everything is matter of life and death and fate of the world is at stakes 24/7 ... sooner or later it becomes standard, and where you can move from there?
Then its no longer "oh shit this is bad" ... it become "not again".

Are they tho?

This will sound smug ... im aware, but i want to say it this way anyway:
So far im not impressed with their work. :-/

There, i said it ...
The same problems i keep repeating over and over and over for last two years, this EA have several dozens of situations where story inevitably drives you to the corner, without any chance to change your course ... then provide you several bad choices and forces you to pick.

But dont get me wrong, i dont say this is bad ... well i do, but i dont mean it in general ... the core of the problem isnt that you are in tough situation where you need to do tough decision between bad choices.
I have seen some datamined stuff that was certainly great example of this done right.
(Hint: Someone is trying to kill someone and you cant help both.)
The problem is, that our options are not sufficient.

Often when i play this game i feel like being with GM who answers me "No you can't do that!" when i want to do something ... and if i ask why not he reply "Bcs i said so!"
I totally gets there are platform limitations, we will never have "all" options, ultimate freedom of actions and reactions is impossible ... obviously.
BUT
If anyone can, will, and wish to create "a roleplay game with custom character" ... i believe he certainly should try to provide as much options as he can ...

One more thing to this:
As far as i know, one of mostly criticised things about DoS II. was that people felt like they dont get full experience with their custom characters ... like the game was created for Larian Origin characters and option to create your own was just added at last minute.
Im affraid history is repeating itself.
This game is perfectly ready to embrace any of your Custom character ... as long as your Custom character fits to psychological profile of some Origin characters ... but once you start to differ, there are problems.
And i dont like it. :-/

Good idea. TN ftw

I think the scene with Barth and Meli, the little boy who is accused of stealing Barth's locket, has already been mentioned here. I already knew this scene from my previous playthroughs, so I knew what really happened and why.

But to get to this point, I had to choose options that felt very counter-intuitive. I had to accuse Meli that he stole the locket, even though my Tav had no proof of this. Maybe Barth lost his locket, and did not notice until now, or maybe Meli really stole it - our Tav could not know.

Instead of immediately choosing one side, I would have prefered to have an option to stop Barth from hurting the child, and then to hear both sides. There could be an insight check, or maybe the possibility to use Detect Thoughts, if available, to come to an opinion.

Spoiler alert for a possible outcome of this situation:

Interesting ...
I allways thought that reveal hidden behind a spoiler was just another lie. O_o

It is - the kid is a 2d stereotypical 'urchin charlatan', just like the others that fill that role - it's pretty clear that he's feeding you a sob story that he has no actual investment in, and barely remembers ten seconds after he tells it to you. This does make the point of the complaint even worse though - there's no nuance to the player's ability to handle the situation.

If you are not a Criminal this is the best outcome.

If you have the Criminal background you are screwed:

https://forums.larian.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Main=100722&Number=813362#Post813362

I also just noticed that the questline for the background might not be available if

a) Aradin and his gang are not in the Druid Grove from the beginning, but in the wilderness (after the dispute with Zevlor)

b) if Aradin and Zevlor's dispute is settled and they are persuaded to stay, then they are in the Druid Grove for a while, but at some point they are no longer there...