I don't think you can justify a lacking cast with "that's the story". Especially when it's about mind control that works on everyone just the same, including undead characters (which makes zero sense btw, they just wanted a vampire character to cater to Twilight fans and ignored all inconvenient logic).
It would actually make more sense to tadpole good characters that would 100% oppose you otherwise for a bigger power shift. Neutral and evil characters like Astarion, Wyll or Gale could be bought in exchange for fixing their situations, with no tadpoles required at all. Bit of a misstep right there, Larian. Lae'zel would do anything to impress Vlaakith, no tadpole required.
Larian went too far in making everyone so extra special and connected to the story. They completely omitted the backbone of any cast, the knight in shining armor, without any extravagant backstory or major condition. The down to earth good character that would have put all the evil and morally grey characters in context. The Ajantis or Edér of BG3. Or the light hearted adventurer who helps people they come across. The Coran of BG3, completely missing. Or how about the mercenary type who's not heavily invested in anything who's just trying to make their way, like Safana. A normal character who is cool simply because they are. There is no frame of reference. There's just a weird cast of edgy unusual characters who are competing who's the most edgy. With all of them being heavily involved in the story somehow against all odds.
And then of course the re-hashing of two old "good" companions from BG2. Which is a complete failure as well. The best way of doing justice to those characters would have been to NOT make them low level companions, again.
Decades of CRPGs sure have cemented a cliché cast of characters in some player brain. Next you are going to ask for a miner dwarf who hates elves, a bard who spends all of his or her time flirting or drinking and tries too hard to be the epitome of charisma, a timid and innocent female cleric healer and a human paladin with two neurons both being dedicated to fight evil.
Clever, but it's not about clichés.
It's about finding the right balance between ordinary and extreme. One can't exist without the other.
if Larian wrote Game of Thrones, every major character would be Melisandre. And it simply wouldn't work. You can only have so many dark secrets, alien origins, gods for lovers or magic time bombs put in your chest. Larian are completely oversaturating their setting with such things, and it will just feel like "whatever" in the end.
I don't think you can justify a lacking cast with "that's the story". Especially when it's about mind control that works on everyone just the same, including undead characters (which makes zero sense btw, they just wanted a vampire character to cater to Twilight fans and ignored all inconvenient logic).
It would actually make more sense to tadpole good characters that would 100% oppose you otherwise for a bigger power shift. Neutral and evil characters like Astarion, Wyll or Gale could be bought in exchange for fixing their situations, with no tadpoles required at all. Bit of a misstep right there, Larian. Lae'zel would do anything to impress Vlaakith, no tadpole required.
Larian went too far in making everyone so extra special and connected to the story. They completely omitted the backbone of any cast, the knight in shining armor, without any extravagant backstory or major condition. The down to earth good character that would have put all the evil and morally grey characters in context. The Ajantis or Edér of BG3. Or the light hearted adventurer who helps people they come across. The Coran of BG3, completely missing. Or how about the mercenary type who's not heavily invested in anything who's just trying to make their way, like Safana. A normal character who is cool simply because they are. There is no frame of reference. There's just a weird cast of edgy unusual characters who are competing who's the most edgy. With all of them being heavily involved in the story somehow against all odds.
And then of course the re-hashing of two old "good" companions from BG2. Which is a complete failure as well. The best way of doing justice to those characters would have been to NOT make them low level companions, again.
Decades of CRPGs sure have cemented a cliché cast of characters in some player brain. Next you are going to ask for a miner dwarf who hates elves, a bard who spends all of his or her time flirting or drinking and tries too hard to be the epitome of charisma, a timid and innocent female cleric healer and a human paladin with two neurons both being dedicated to fight evil.
This. Generic cast is generic. And boring. Two of the most critically acclaimed CRPGs subverted or completely avoided these tropes: Planescape Torment and Masks of the Betrayer.
Gut and razlin are strategic, to lead the goblins. They arnt just handing tadpoles out to randos.
The flaming fist are essentially the military of Baldur's Gate. Strategic choice again
You failed to mention the guy near the owl bear cave. Ragzlin is a bugbear but I was thinking of the goblins in the Blighted Village but I may be wrong about them. We have no idea of the Fist soldier's rank or importance and your dismissive comment about the organisation being the de facto military is meaningless.
Apart from Shadowheart and Lae'zel, initially we don't know about any of the others being on the nautiloid so statements about only thralls being on the nautiloid are unsustainable.
I don't think you can justify a lacking cast with "that's the story". Especially when it's about mind control that works on everyone just the same, including undead characters (which makes zero sense btw, they just wanted a vampire character to cater to Twilight fans and ignored all inconvenient logic).
It would actually make more sense to tadpole good characters that would 100% oppose you otherwise for a bigger power shift. Neutral and evil characters like Astarion, Wyll or Gale could be bought in exchange for fixing their situations, with no tadpoles required at all. Bit of a misstep right there, Larian. Lae'zel would do anything to impress Vlaakith, no tadpole required.
Larian went too far in making everyone so extra special and connected to the story. They completely omitted the backbone of any cast, the knight in shining armor, without any extravagant backstory or major condition. The down to earth good character that would have put all the evil and morally grey characters in context. The Ajantis or Edér of BG3. Or the light hearted adventurer who helps people they come across. The Coran of BG3, completely missing. Or how about the mercenary type who's not heavily invested in anything who's just trying to make their way, like Safana. A normal character who is cool simply because they are. There is no frame of reference. There's just a weird cast of edgy unusual characters who are competing who's the most edgy. With all of them being heavily involved in the story somehow against all odds.
And then of course the re-hashing of two old "good" companions from BG2. Which is a complete failure as well. The best way of doing justice to those characters would have been to NOT make them low level companions, again.
Decades of CRPGs sure have cemented a cliché cast of characters in some player brain. Next you are going to ask for a miner dwarf who hates elves, a bard who spends all of his or her time flirting or drinking and tries too hard to be the epitome of charisma, a timid and innocent female cleric healer and a human paladin with two neurons both being dedicated to fight evil.
There's clichés and then there's tropes. Using tropes is good writing. The grumpy elf-hating beer-loving dwarf and the lecherous compulsive liar bard are clichés. A friendly and funny down-to-earth "best friend" who always has your back is a trope. It makes for enjoyable characters like Garrus, Chewbacca, Alistair or Edér. You may personally not like some of those characters or even any of them and that's perfectly fine, of course. However, I think that would place you in the minority and even if you don't enjoy those characters per se, they still make for fine backdrop that makes those "special" characters stand out.
Larian writers don't seem to like using tropes commonly used in similar games, perhaps because they think they know better. As a result the whole party feels like a DnD table where everyone has main character syndrome.
Third reason is normalcy. I really like normalcy, but all of the Origin characters are rather special. I like special if it's uncommon, not if everyone in the party has a world-altering secret. Have some regular non-secretive people around that just do their job feels more natural to me. Having just a normal human fighter along that fights and shuts up tones it down a bit.
Fourth is focus: I remember Dragon Age or Mass Effect 2, or KotOR, or god forbid both Pathfinder games, where talking to everyone in the camp/castle/ship felt like a chore after a while. I much prefer to be invested in but a few for a playthrough; especially when multiple characters are flirty. But, if I *have* them in the camp, I am compelled to talk to them. It's just how I am. Much better to not have the option. The hireling way ensures the banter and relationships you build have more impact.
A friendly and funny down-to-earth "best friend" who always has your back is a trope. It makes for enjoyable characters like Garrus, Chewbacca, Alistair or Edér.
I don't feel Alistair quite fits with the others there though. Isn't he more "the whiner" than "the best friend"? You know, the mandatory Bioware companion that spends most of his time crying and whining; Carth, Atton, Carver, Kaidan... Though I suppose he can be put in more than one box.
I am fine with it. The mind flayers kidnapped who they kidnapped. It would be weird if they kidnapped an exact character from every demographic and if mysteriously I got on with everyone that happened to be kidnapped and implanted with a tadpole. Characters can be multiclassed if you don't like their class and you can always sack them all (or just kill them all) and just hire mercenaries if you want to too just build your own party. Or go it alone. Thats the thing I really like about this game is that all choices (however insane) can be valid ones.
"It would be weird if they kidnapped an exact character from every demographic". Would it? Depends on the goal of the Illithids.
"Characters can be multiclassed . . ." Which still leaves you with at least one level of a class you don't want and at least one level behind in the class you do want. Hirelings and Soloing are options available in many RPGs but this thread is about disappoinment in the BG3 companions.
"Thats the thing I really like about this game is that all choices (however insane) can be valid ones." Making choices is one of the fundamentals of RPGs. It is impossible to make sweeping statements about 'this game' when we know so little of the plot or the consequences of actions.
Larian went too far in making everyone so extra special and connected to the story. They completely omitted the backbone of any cast, the knight in shining armor, without any extravagant backstory or major condition. The down to earth good character that would have put all the evil and morally grey characters in context. The Ajantis or Edér of BG3. Or the light hearted adventurer who helps people they come across. The Coran of BG3, completely missing. Or how about the mercenary type who's not heavily invested in anything who's just trying to make their way, like Safana. A normal character who is cool simply because they are. There is no frame of reference. There's just a weird cast of edgy unusual characters who are competing who's the most edgy. With all of them being heavily involved in the story somehow against all odds.
That's way too bland for my taste. All of those will be bad origin characters (fighting against dark impulses is the whole theme of the story). Well, some of those might work as companions. Problem is the new additions are limited so they had to make choices. Two of those were a tribute to old games (and having played PoE2, you do know that characters can drop in power for one reason or another). The unique ones (that we know of) is Halsin and Minthara.
Halsin does strike me as a genuinely good guy, willing to help others and being down to earth. I would not call him 'edgy'.
Then again, I do like edgy characters and feel absolutely no shame of it.
Larian writers don't seem to like using tropes commonly used in similar games, perhaps because they think they know better. As a result the whole party feels like a DnD table where everyone has main character syndrome.
I don't feel that way, I even feel like most CRPGs out there have the opposite syndrome, being the "side character" syndrome. They are most often there just to be a prop for the player, to conform to their cliché and they barely feel like character with a motivation. Their goal is the player goal and they show pretty much no sign of sentience when presented with any situation.
Larian writers don't seem to like using tropes commonly used in similar games, perhaps because they think they know better. As a result the whole party feels like a DnD table where everyone has main character syndrome.
I don't feel that way, I even feel like most CRPGs out there have the opposite syndrome, being the "side character" syndrome. They are most often there just to be a prop for the player, to conform to their cliché and they barely feel like character with a motivation. Their goal is the player goal and they show pretty much no sign of sentience when presented with any situation.
I agree completely.
Someone said these companions have main character syndrome. They literally are main characters! If they didn't have these other things, there would be no reason to play them over a Tav. I mean, surely this is obvious?
It's fair to ask whether the origin system ends up a hindrance to the experience of playing as a Tav, of course. But it was a design choice. They didn't do it to be edgy or subversive, they did it to add a way to entice people to want to replay the game as much as possible. Who the hell wants to play an origin character that doesn't have an extra layer of drama to entice them? People are so focused on their own intended playthrough experience they have allowed themselves to be blind to the other options available. You can certainly have an opinion on whether this whole idea was a good one or not, but use a bit of logical thinking when you're trying to grasp why they did it.
(And btw Game of Thrones is full of 'special snowflake' characters, albeit in a low magic fantasy setting. I could outline the three main Stark pov characters alone to prove this point. Drama makes a good story, lack of it often makes a boring one)
It's fair to ask whether the origin system ends up a hindrance to the experience of playing as a Tav, of course. But it was a design choice.
I suppose this is my main problem. I personally don't like the origin system as it is. If I'm going to play Astarion as an origin character, I won't be able to detach myself from what I already know Astarion's personality is like and even if I try, I expect the game to force it on me the same way it did in DOS2 and that isn't what I'm looking for in a crpg. I agree with @snowram's sentiment that characters in rpgs often lack a sense of sentience and I'd be much happier if all the resources spent on making each origin character playable had instead been invested in more reactivity that fleshes out those characters as companions. It is what it is.
(And btw Game of Thrones is full of 'special snowflake' characters, albeit in a low magic fantasy setting. I could outline the three main Stark pov characters alone to prove this point. Drama makes a good story, lack of it often makes a boring one)
GoT is based on books. The literary characters have more meat on their bones.
"People are so focused on their own intended playthrough experience they have allowed themselves to be blind to the other options available." Are they? That's just an opinion you have pulled out of thin air. I could just as easily claim that people are so focused on their own intended playthrough that they cannot accept that their choices are not being reflected by everyone else.
"You can certainly have an opinion on whether this whole idea was a good one or not, but use a bit of logical thinking when you're trying to grasp why they did it. " Why? Whether I think the idea is good or bad, I still think the origin companions are much of a muchness which means that if I dislike or am uninterested in one then I pretty much dislike and am uninterested in them all. Conversely I could like some or all of the companions be not be interested in playing as an origin character.
It's fair to ask whether the origin system ends up a hindrance to the experience of playing as a Tav, of course. But it was a design choice.
I suppose this is my main problem. I personally don't like the origin system as it is. If I'm going to play Astarion as an origin character, I won't be able to detach myself from what I already know Astarion's personality is like and even if I try, I expect the game to force it on me the same way it did in DOS2 and that isn't what I'm looking for in a crpg. I agree with @snowram's sentiment that characters in rpgs often lack a sense of sentience and I'd be much happier if all the resources spent on making each origin character playable had instead been invested in more reactivity that fleshes out those characters as companions. It is what it is.
Yeah, like I said that really is a fair question because having the origin system by its very nature does add this element of plot contrivance or believability. I don't mind this, but I can see that it would be an issue for others. I loved Wrath of the Righteous but I generally found the companion quests to be dull, so I'll happily take a bunch of special snowflakes over the alternative. I wonder if they should have done what they did with the Dark Urge and made a wizard origin, vampire, warlock etc and just had a slightly less out there set of companions?
Interesting: a channel I follow just made a very good video on youtube which went over this topic re BG3 and was fairly balanced in the pros and cons I think:
Disappointed? Yes. My party will be filled out with hirelings. I don't like any of the Origin characters. I never played BG1/BG2 so maybe I will take along those ones though I wouldn't be surprised if they have somehow been "Larianized".
[quote=Llengrath]Yeah, like I said that really is a fair question because having the origin system by its very nature does add this element of plot contrivance or believability. I don't mind this, but I can see that it would be an issue for others. I loved Wrath of the Righteous but I generally found the companion quests to be dull, so I'll happily take a bunch of special snowflakes over the alternative. I wonder if they should have done what they did with the Dark Urge and made a wizard origin, vampire, warlock etc and just had a slightly less out there set of companions?
I think that's exactly what they should have done. Leave the companions as strictly companions and focus on these different origins as backgrounds specifically for the main custom character. I think the Dark Urge as a gameplay concept is brilliant and if they had done like, 6 of those I'd think that's really cool.
(And btw Game of Thrones is full of 'special snowflake' characters, albeit in a low magic fantasy setting. I could outline the three main Stark pov characters alone to prove this point. Drama makes a good story, lack of it often makes a boring one)
GoT is based on books. The literary characters have more meat on their bones.
"People are so focused on their own intended playthrough experience they have allowed themselves to be blind to the other options available." Are they? That's just an opinion you have pulled out of thin air. I could just as easily claim that people are so focused on their own intended playthrough that they cannot accept that their choices are not being reflected by everyone else.
"You can certainly have an opinion on whether this whole idea was a good one or not, but use a bit of logical thinking when you're trying to grasp why they did it. " Why? Whether I think the idea is good or bad, I still think the origin companions are much of a muchness which means that if I dislike or am uninterested in one then I pretty much dislike and am uninterested in them all. Conversely I could like some or all of the companions be not be interested in playing as an origin character.
GoT is based on books. The literary characters have more meat on their bones. Irrelevant, but if you've actually read the books there's even more special snowflakery
"People are so focused on their own intended playthrough experience they have allowed themselves to be blind to the other options available." Are they? That's just an opinion you have pulled out of thin air. No, it's not. It's specifically focusing on the people who are rightfully pointing up the plot contrivance of so many special one companions by reminding them that each of the 'companions' are also MCs of someone else's playthrough. It's not an opinion, it's clear from many of the posts above me were focusing on them as companions without considering they are also protagonists too. There was no value judgment (which you seemed to have missed), I think it's a valid criticism of the origin system, but unfortunately a necessary side effect. You will notice (well you won't obviously but other people who can follow a train of thought will) I never once gave an opinion on whether the origin system was good and in fact suggested it might be a negative for a Tav playthrough. I have no argument with anyone that thinks this
I could just as easily claim that people are so focused on their own intended playthrough that they cannot accept that their choices are not being reflected by everyone else. I've no ideas what you were trying to accomplish here, it makes absolutely no sense
"You can certainly have an opinion on whether this whole idea was a good one or not, but use a bit of logical thinking when you're trying to grasp why they did it. " Why? Because thinking logically when you're trying to make an argument is pretty crucial. As evidenced by the following sentence:
Whether I think the idea is good or bad, I still think the origin companions are much of a muchness which means that if I dislike or am uninterested in one then I pretty much dislike and am uninterested in them all. Conversely I could like some or all of the companions be not be interested in playing as an origin character. Firstly I never mentioned once about the likeability of the origin characters. That was never the point of any of my argument. Why even mention this? My point was the duality of the origin characters leaves a lot of special one companions when they are used not as the MC. I mean other people got this, how was it so hard for you?
Secondly whether you like them or not is your opinion and as such it matters only to you. I mean I hate Laezel and Astarion, but I'm not so deluded to think that opinion is of relevance to anyone but me. It's cool not to like them, but it wasn't what my post was about. The fact that you're still calling them companions kind of proves my point. They exist in a bizarre Schrodinger's limbo. To stress this again, as I'm sure you didn't get it second time. I'm not talking about likeability, I'm talking about plot contrivance of so many weird and wonderful backstories in one place. And if you read (and understood) previous posts, many other people have this very criticism.
To re-iterate my point. The reason so many origin characters have such convoluted backstories is because Larian chose the origin system which by necessity brings these issues to the fore. I personally don't mind it that much, but I think it's a valid criticism if anyone has an issue with it. I think my suggestion of more Dark Urge style origins would have made it better (and probably have been cheaper).
You need to learn to carefully read the posts you're replying to because it's obvious you really didn't understand my point. At all.
I think that's exactly what they should have done. Leave the companions as strictly companions and focus on these different origins as backgrounds specifically for the main custom character. I think the Dark Urge as a gameplay concept is brilliant and if they had done like, 6 of those I'd think that's really cool.
