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

the point of hype is to distract a buyer long enough to get their money

Well said. To some extent a known story can be enjoyable if the story is great and is well portrayed. Rereading for example "The Name of the Rose" by Umberto Ecco is still a pleasure for me, for the ingenious writing and the philosophic stuff alone. But I want to find out mayor stuff first by myself.

I can accept the infos about Ketheric Thorm because I played EA and heard about him already from this anabolic agents using druid. If I were new to the game, I don't know what to think. I would at least have felt differently in EA if the plot about the Absolute and the three lieutenants would have been revealed already. I was relatively sure that the first three bosses from the goblins were not that important, but I was not entirely sure. There was a comforting insecurity with the thought about a huge world with mysterious processes laying before me, with surprises and secrets to reveal. Now a lot gets revealed from outside of the game. I'd prefer the other way.

Another thought, the movement of the "Absolute" seems to be new, at least nobody from a bit more far away seems to have heard of it. The companions don't know anything, not even rumors seemingly have spread, despite the fact that an army of worm-carriers is produced at Moonrise Towers. A bit strange, but ok. Such a secret movement should remain in secrecy as long as possible, also for the player. Revealing core structures and members of a mafia organisation too early is not a wise move if we want to enjoy the investigation against them. If the Absolute and her main subordinates are just some underbosses to the real main villain (perhaps one of our companions ... ), ok, I'll change my mind. However I don't think the story is that big or crazy.

Yup, I agree with this. I avoid PFH for this reason also.

While I can respect this opinion, I feel somewhat differently.

Take Saravok from BG1. He, or at least the voice actor who played him, appeared prominently in the promotional material prior to release. And David Warner (who voiced Irenicus) was not only ubiquitous with BG2, but was the very first character you see in game. And both games sold well enough for a third game to be made.

If you want another example of this, take a look at Kang in the current MCU. He has been marketed as 'The Big Bad' of phase 5 for quite a while, with his first appearance in the Loki series. He is the main antagonist of Quantummania, and will have his own Avengers movie. In Antman, he doesn't appear proper until act 3, yet he is absolutely important to the promotion of the movie. And even his role in Antman is merely a prelude to his Avengers debut. And unless I am mistaken, Thanos was foreshadowed quite early in Phase 1, yet didn't actually appear in any real context until Guardians.

While there are differences between movies and video games, marketing for these two media types is often very similar. It works in most cases, and I believe it works here. Yes, we know a name and a face for one of the baddies. But we don't know actually know, at least I didn't get, from the trailer if he is going to be the ultimate baddie (Saravok or Irenicus). Simply that he is in the mix. We still have 2 chapters for that relationship to play out and I for one am quite thrilled to see how it unfolds.

I can't speak too much for BG1/2 since I'm not sure I was even alive for those ad campaigns, and if I was I certainly was too young to be aware of their existene. But I will point out that the landscape of rpgs have changed. having played part of BG1, the companions there are shadows of what you get in most party-based rpgs these days. their content is miniscule, they clearly were never really meant to be a draw the way they are now. And with the MCU example, yes Kang is featuring heavily in the marketing, but this is the third movie of a three-movie series that's had the same central cast the whole time. Anyone watching that movie is likely to already know the main characters and who they are, so Kang is the new factor that the story is turning on. Plus there's the added complication that Kang is going to be a factor in the wider MCU. This would be more like if Ant Man 1's marketting had revolved around Yellow Jacket. You're right that film and game marketting is often similar, I just think the MCU is too different to be a good comparison here. Even with Thanos, he was foreshadowed in a post-credit scene in the first Avenger's movie, which I would again consider very different from what Larian's doing.

The fact he's been a non-entity for the bulk of act 1 and that he's still going to share screentime with 2 other villains and then the Absolute itself just makes me think he's not going to be all that significant in the end, just a boss we end up having to defeat eventually. I can't see a meaningful relationship building between us and him or any villain really. Act one of a story is where these things are meant to start, and for me at least, it's off to a very poor start and I don't expect it to improve. I don't actually care about him at all. I'm pretty disconnected from the story of this game in general though to be frank. It's an enjoyable play experience but so far act one has failed to impress me or make me feel like it stands out in any way.

I respect your opinion. I think we can agree to disagree.

Just to toss a couple coppers in, I agree with not fully revealing the other antagonists. I wouldn’t mind vague references to them. What I want to see revealed are the gameplay mechanics, all feats, classes, races, things like that. Being mysterious about the plot and story line is also great. I don’t want this to be like movie teasers that end up showing all the good scenes before you even watch the movie.

With that being said, I am NOT overly concerned if they do make in-depth reveals. I will just carry on murder hoboing my marry way! 😂

Larian really have the habit of spoiling way too much.

We don't need to know about the antagonists before we play the game and find out for ourselves. Why would we? Their introduction would be much better left to the actual scene when you meet them. Now, when I will meet Ketheric in game, I'm just going to be like - yeah, it's that JK Simmons guy who was about this and that from the trailer. All the hints you find in game on old pieces of paper and a proper introduction - already spoiled. Why??

I was really annoyed with how Shadowheart and Astarion are presented as well. They completely missed out on a potential reveal scene for both that would actually be shocking, or at least surprising, and get an emotional response from the player. Revealing their secrets on every load screen or marketing art, or just blurting out a detailed description of their past in character creation is extremely lame. You can't avoid it even if you want to, or will never play as an "Origin character".

Playing with metagaming information is a BURDEN for the player, when you have to pretend not knowing Astarion is a vampire or that Shadowheart is a Sharran priest. Or that you don't already know who Ketheric Thorm is.

Why are we being force fed all this metagaming information at every turn that will just make the role playing and storytelling lose steam? We only get that first playthrough once anyway.

Why aren't they even trying? Spoiling things is not marketing. Quite the opposite in fact, no matter how "cool" these characters might be.

Good question. Maybe they needed something to revive the forums. Even Tuco is back in time. xD

You are very naive to think spoliing things isn't marketing. You inherently have to spoil things to promote a media. And with act 1 fully revealed, it leaves very little choice of material for Larian to choose from. I don't think they would have been able to maintain their momentum for 6 months with only monk, dragonborn and multiclassing. I actually think that what has been released isn't really groundbreaking spoilers as it is both already mentioned in game and close to what we can already play, and it makes for a nice cinematic moment that any trailer need.

I assume this trailer can only be targeted at people who haven't played early access 😑

They don't have to market the game to people who already bought it. People who didn't buy yet don't know about act I and there's still 6 months left to market the game for them.

I'll give you that an extremely long early access like this might stretch marketing period as well potentially requiring more reveals. But they don't have to market a game for two years like they have. Just once when EA becomes available and then a big push closer to full release. I don't really see the need to keep pushing the game during early access considering how well it sold initially.

Here is my theory:



I would be absolutely baffled to no end if they actually double down on that AGAIN, especially considering how people have complained that specific element of DOS2 was one of the parts not well received from fans of the game. Personally speaking I didn't hate it nearly as much as others did but I can't imagine a world where they go for it a second time and it working out in any other way reception-wise than how it was received in DOS2.


Without specifically spoiling anything from DOS2(gonna drop a spoiler tag nonetheless), my only real concern is