Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - General Please stop revealing Antagonists. Don't spoil the game before its release.

As someone who doesn't even know who Ketheric is I agree with the OP. I would have preferred to meet him in game.
The only reason i watched the video was because I wanted to see if there are any new customization or races that are previewed.

Larian has been spoiling this game since day 1. It also doesn’t seem like the story here will be main attraction and is not Larian’s forte.

The writing has been very corny and the art direction even worse.

If all you’ve got in the writing dept is a ‘mystery’, what have you? Once it’s ‘spolied’, can you go back and enjoy the story again?

Last good book I read was Julian Barnes’s The Sense of and Ending. I read it twice, and it was a different read the second time. It didn’t have any mystery to solve, but it had great characterisation – although, I’ll admit that’s subject to taste.

I also have no idea who Ketheric is, but it was a smart move by Larian to include the guy in the latest trailers. He’s obviously not the main villain, but he at least adds some structure to what was otherwise a very flimsy reason to care about this game’s story.

Even Marvel and co. tease their villains in their trailers, otherwise it’s all flash and bang. If all you care about is the name of the ‘villian’, that’s quite a situation to be in, IMO. I can’t relate to it, as the more interesting element relates to the character of the villain, which cannot – in any way – be explored in a 3min trailer. That’s where all the narrative punch is at.

So there’s no spoiler here for me in terms of what I look for from a story. Even if they baldly stated that The Absolute is Bhaal, I wouldn’t be crying my eyes out, since it merely ‘spoiled’ a name – a meaningless thing. More intriguing would be, what are they going to do with Bhaal? Nuance, character development and so on.

JK Simmons is indeed a quality actor. But how many great actors have been wheeled in to add some gloss to an otherwise derivate film/story?

I thought Keanu Reeves worked well in Cyperpunk. The guy is no Al Pachino, but he seemed to enjoy the part, invested in the lines, and cd project have the writerly chops to deliver good material either way.

What I see with Larian is always a ‘big effort’, always ‘big heart’, even if what they’re investing in isn’t their strong suit. They’re not a cynical company, the’yre not cash-grabbers. Nor do they lack talent.

Alas, the writing team will never convince me they were the ‘correct pick’. They’re not even woke-wanks, pandering and so on – they’re bang smack in the middle of being ultra-pandering and being actually ballsy enough to do something different. The safest of bets.

Well, look. Who plays big budget games for their stories these days anyway? They did their job in keeping it inoffensive and pyrotenchincal – that’ll satisfy the wallet aspect in terms of payback.

But yeah, we’ll be waiting a few more years, I think, before anyone is allowed to write something interesting again.

I think Ricky Gervais summed up the whole thing quite aptly about a certain woke-hammer being dropped recently:

This is me pondering whether they'll change any of the words I've used in my work after I'm dead, to spare those who are fragile and easily offended. Words like 'fat' and 'ugly'. And 'cunt' and 'fuck'. And 'fat, ugly, greedy, pathetic little stupid fucking cunt'. Stuff like that.

There's a scale between trailers that provide practically no information, just hype, to trailers that include brief and usually out-of-context clips of what's to come, and finally to trailers that explain too much. Imo, Larian's plan to reveal multiple antagonists through dedicated trailers and descriptive blurbs is too far to the right on that scale.

As others have said, details and intro cinematics for companion characters and/or early Act 1 NPCs would be preferable over providing information about later-game antagonists/ the game's general mystery. I'm ~fine with the trailer about Ketheric, as it also adds to the mystery/gravitas of the game. But I think revealing details on the other 2 main antagonists will be a bit much...

Agree. And I don't care if the actor was JK Simmons or JK Rowling. It's an RPG, the studio should not use some movie marketing tricks to fool the players. I purchased this game not for some movie stars' popular face nor voice, but good story writing, good character progression, good combat mechanics, and good adventure pacing management! First the movie industry get suck and then gaming industry as well? Hideo Kojima and CDPR and you too Larian?

But as mentioned in earlier post, we _should_ know the three servant villains, they're revealed by the voice of the absolute as we near the edge of Act 1. We're going to see some smiling rogue, pale elf woman and Kethric Thorm. By memory, Kethric is supposed to be young? (And FR elves now have facial hair??)

That's a point, elves in FR live 700 to 1200 years. Kethric having aged 100 years doesn't necessarily make him even middle-aged. I'm guessing he's actually half-elven (which paladin isn't?) and further preserved by necromancy.

Much of this hinges on the end of Act 1 cut-scene. I suspect that scene has been majorly revamped.

Which scene are you talking about? We haven’t seen end of act1 - that presumably will be a showdown with Thorm at Moonlight towers.

The cut scene where the voice of the absolute forces the party to its knees and SH's artifact drives it off. This happens just before the overland map is revealed.

We can get to the end of Act 1 really quickly, if we want; skip the grove, circumnavigate Moonhaven, then bypass goblin guards. Possibly start of mountain pass and Moonrise is Act 1 too?

But we don't really know whether Moonrise Towers or Nightsong Temple are Act 1 or 2. I would wager they're Act 2, which we encounter early but can't resolve until later. (If I were the TT DM, that's what I would do, introduce the unkillable BBEG, party suffers a bit, does some questing, then get the big pay off when they take him down.)

I’m aware this is wandering off topic, but hopefully just a quick digression for clarification. I usually get this scene on entering the goblin camp, so see it very much as mid-Act 1, in the lead-up to the confrontation with the goblin leaders.

But IIRC in previous releases it used to happen instead when getting towards the edge of the area map for the first time. But perhaps the triggers are actually the same, and in earlier runs I’d coincidentally ventured up the gulley to the side of the goblin camp that leads to the world map so got the scene then, whereas lately I don’t bother and just head straight to the camp?

It's difficult to read game's exact structure without playing the whole game, but I personally believe that what we have seen is most but not all of act1 and act1 will end at moonrise tower where nature of our tadpoles will be revealed, we will have to "commit" to our selection of companions and we will move to Baldur's Gate for act2 loosing access to act1 areas. Considering the similarities I am mostly comparing how D:OS2 was structured, though it is difficult to say at this time if BG3 will turn out to be D:OS2 2.0 through and through, or will they diverge as the game progresses.

But putting that aside, and going back to the point you made in the first place. Yeah, I do think you are right that the "control" cutscene will be likely modified and we will be shown the three, rather than have them just discribed to us. That would make their identity less of a mistery even without trailer spoilers.

I have one question. I thought it will be possible to have a custom party without tricks.

But, that would mean either:
-- we're losing custom characters (if chosing companions)
-- custom characters remain undismissable

> We gain Minsk and Karlach later, so confirmed set of 3 + 2 companions?

Possible playthrough problems: reliance on Astarion when not playing rogue (confident). Chosing between Wyll and Gale, strongly favors Gale in general (correct me if I'm wrong). Shadowheart -- possibly -- comes whether you want or not if she still has the artefact. This costs you a slot.

I’ve also been guessing act 1 will end with resolution of the Moonrise Towers plot. I’m not sure why I’ve had it in my head that there would be three acts, and that what we get in EA is only “most of” act 1. That is, whether it’s something that Larian have said and I’m remembering or I’ve just made it up! If it’s not a figment of my imagination, then it’s only struck me now that each act might revolve around one of the three chosen.

(BTW I’m still going to keep hoping we don’t have to commit to a reduced set of companions at a predetermined point until we get another confirmation that’s still the plan!)

Is there a single game in existence where having to kill a party member has been positively recieved?

I've been thinking about the og post a bit. On one hand, I don't quite like the trailer. On the other, none of my favorite games could be spoiled. However, some games like, any dark souls title, are just more fun with zero info.

Counting the facts, we know:
His name
His looks
The class (dark justiciar)

Is name dropping antagonists a spoiler? Or did this clip show something more than that? It's gameplay footage, right. But, is it meaningful...?

No, still confused

The how doesn't make sense to me to start with.

"Hey guys! We're going to Moonrise towers to meet our collective goal. The one we've been working on for the past weeks! However, your vibes were rancid. Guess you'll die :)"

Since that can't happen, they must die on their way there, right? Either that, or the party gets split against their will. There's no explanation to justify leaving them behind. It's death, mind control, or kidnapping. Ugh. Getting lost near Moonrise towers doesn't do wonders for your survival.

First of all, whenever we loose companions is not 100% certain. While other say that Larian wasn't clear enough I think that their statement in Q&A is rather clear as to their intentions:
We can only guess what that could mean exactly, or if something changes in the last two years. I am pretty sure they said there will be a way to have custom party to start with, but I also don't know what what would mean exactly - would Larian allow us to just create 4 coop player NPC without multile game instances running trick? Or would they give us an option to create merceneires (aka, D:OS2) during character creation, that can be dismissed and killed?

I don't think we know when companions not in EA will be recruitable, no? I will be surprised if Karlach won't be origin/recruitable in act1. Yes, she currently dashes away and says: "see you in Baldur's Gate" but it feels like she is meant to join us like other companions - she just doesn't do so in Early Access.

After Game Awards trailer, I assume Jaheira and Minsk would be additional non-origin act2 companions, but Jaheira's (?) line from most recent trailer suggests her presence at/before Moonlight tower. Will Minsc be there captured as well? Would they be recruitable? Or would they just be NPCs for end of act1 and depending on our actions recruitable companions in act2?

5e doesn't require rogue - Astarion has been killed in most of my EA playthroughts and I didn't miss skillset at the slighterst. Anyone can openlocks/spot and disarm traps now. With multiclassing would allow you to make rogue hybrid from other companions if you wish to do so. I can't speak for wider companion preferences, and I can invision party compositions where both Wyll and Gale could co-exists. Larian already made it so, that the weapon gets tranfered to player if Shadowheart isn't around. I would guess the same would happen later on, if player would decide not to travel with Shadowheart anymore.

Edit.

Here is my theory:

Thanks for the info. That would certainly be quite something, and we still have at least two spare (hopefully). 3 is too few for me. I haven't gotten good results without Astarion, but I've also had tools pile up in my inventory like crazy, haha. It clearly does account for people killing him.

Not to state the obvious, but 3 is really restrictive. I can survive with adjusting my party, it's not that. It's just that it strongly encourages pigeonholing player behavior. Got one good or evil companion among two opposite? Leave them at home lest they heavily disapprove too often. And leave. Price is being a man/woman down. Catch 22 🫠

So, you need a group that roughly approves of the same actions, or you'll do a lot of reloading. Or have the approval neither here nor there -- get a bad ending for them/be locked out of their quest? That's. That's bothersome. To say the least...

Some of the greatest stories ever told depend on the mystery reveal to make them noteworthy. I mean there's an entire genre of writing devoted to the concept.

I'm with those who would rather see an end to the spoiling.

Both of these points are quite true. A good mystery can absolutely be enjoyed again because if it's a good mystery then there's enjoyment to be derived from from seeing all the hints and breadcrumbs that you missed on a first read. However that doesn't mean spoiling doesn't take something away. There's pleasure to be found in the first experience, of not knowing where things are going and possibly even putting the clues together ahead of time. I think that using the antagonists like this, can easily remove that fun from a first playthrough.

I also just think that the antagonists are the wrong characters to use for the marketting in general. Because these three antagonists don't have a meaningful presence in act one, we're not going to be building a relationship with them, and I think honestly that with how the game is constructed, we're just not gonna be building an emotional bond to them as players or as characters. They're going to obstacles to be overcome more than anything else. I think it would have been better therefore to focus on the companions we've not yet met. There's less chance of spoiling story beats later into the game and they're the characters we as player and PC are going to be building an emotional attatchment to and, in the case of the Origin Companions, playing as. Hell, it would be a great opportunity to properly introduce and explain Jaheira and Minsc to newcomers to the franchise. Brief trailers like this that can contextualise who they are and why we should be excited about them. Because as someone who only just dipped their toe into BG1, I know enough to know they're important, but I don't really know WHY beyond 'they were old, well-loved companions.'

Oh yes, please. We already know the enemy, but so little about our allies.