Originally Posted by avahZ Darkwood
By making Tav an open build Origin character with his own customer dialogue (though admittedly vague and generic) and event situations would he even have a chance of being in the upcoming lore.

Some of y’all have already pretty much said this. What I mean is that like the other origin characters etc, you can play, Tav needs to be an independent option in the game if you don’t chose him at start (choose to let’s say play Wyll’s story.
let me go on a tangent first.


I do think origins are at the heart of the problem.

If you start thinking of a character who the player can play as, and a character who can join your party and be your window into the larger world - those will likely be different characters with different characteristics, interacting differently with player and the world around them, as they fulfill different narrative needs.

That is why I say that BG3 focus on coop (not that coop exists - BG1&2 did have coop, but they weren't designed around it) is detrimental for singleplayer experience.

D&D is a group game - couple players come together to play together a game. Their standing is equal. Bioware didn't do that in BG1&2 - it was a singleplayer experience first and foremost. It simulated social aspect of a table-top, but still make it a single-player experience - your create your character, it is your character's story, and companions join you in your adventure.

BG3 is concieved as coop game, like the table-top - it's expects coop players to be equal (rather than accompanying the host), and because they can play as companions, companions are also written and conceived as protagonist. It is an ensamble cast, rather than a lead with supporting cast, like traditional post-BG RPGs.


This. Is. Not. Bad. This. Is. Interesting.

Where the game falls flat is that now without presence of other life players the game doesn't magically switch to being a singleplayer game, with singular protagonist and a cast of supporting characters - it wasn't written like that. The game ends up in a much harder position of having to fill the void left by absence of living coop players.

That is a problem that existed in D:OS2


Before BG3 ea release I forced myself to finish D:OS2 and have written this feedback. Specifically about companions I have written:

Quote
I am not sold on the origin thing. I think it is clever as a multiplayer design – but from an engaging cRPG perspective it doesn’t cut it for me. Companions didn’t work for me – they never evolved beyond “coop buddy stand-in” – that feeling you get when you play multiplayer game with AI. They have little to say, don’t really seem to have a developed characters, goals or opinions, don’t interact with the world around them, don’t acknowledge each other. Just more bodies to fight, and skills to use.

BG3 doesn't have this specific problem as companions this time around are very robust. The problem they have now is that rather than writing "companions", Larian has written "coop player standins" and that is much harder role to fill - and one they can't quite manage to do believably. That is a problem that none other RPG I have played has, because I never played one designer and written like that. That problem still existed in D:OS2 - the companions were presented as your equals and competitors but the only moment of independence was one basic reputation check in 3rd (?) act. This flaw of their design is just much more present in BG3 due to their much bigger presence and charisma, while lack of content has been an issue in D:OS2.

I think DIsco Elysium is the only game I can think of that did independend feeling companions well - Kim kitsuragi will follow you and leads you lead (which is narratively explained) but will refuse to participate in certain activites, will take lead in others, can completely walk out on you depending on your actions. Not that I am suggesting that BG3 should do companions just that - I don't think it is possible due to difference in game's designs - but if you take on yourself to create a believable digital coop partner it is up to you to do so. If you can't, than attempting it in the first place was a mistake.




Finally getting to the point

As such, I can see how making Tav an origin would make sense - origins are actually protagonists, and not having Tav a protagonist makes him narratively lesser than origins. However, in this case Tav could have been erased alltogehter and game could force us to play as one of the existing origins - I think it would be a more honest representation of what the game has to offer, but would even further demolish an illusion that BG3 offers a good singleplayer experience.

I honestly gave up at this point hoping for good protagonist - the issue I described in my D:OS2 post (PC being neither custostomisable nor pre-defined character) still exists, and I suspect will continue existing for as long as Larian sticks to their origin formula.

What I believe that can be improved upon is how companions feel in singleplayer experience - while origins can be played as or played with, I am not convinced there can't be a better shift in content or player<=>origin dynamic depending if origin is controlled by AI or by player. One could dream about deep systemic changes, but really small tweaks to writing would go a long way in making player<=>origins interactions feel less artificial. It's not about creating actual digital coop player, but creating an illusion that we are interacting with characters with their own volition. That is where BG3 so far fails, while many other (not all!) RPGs succeed.

Last edited by Wormerine; 02/02/23 01:42 PM.