Larian themselves have made statements about trying to tempt players into a more evil playstyle, and I've had the EA since day 1. Now what? Going to move the goal posts and find something about my posting you don't like?
There's a difference between tempting the player into going down a certain path and making the alternative purposefully unattractive, which is what he implies in other posts when saying stuff like:
Originally Posted by kanisatha
Larian doesn't want us to be playing good, kind, noble characters in BG3 because that isn't their thing. So even in situations where they're giving you good/kind/noble options, you can tell they don't want to do it but are feeling compelled to do it, and so they make those options silly/lame/pathetic.
This comes off as extremely disingenous when coming from someone who hasn't played the game. Don't you think?
I know that Larian are putting effort in making the evil path an attractive choice, I believe they also mentioned that evil playthroughs are considerably less popular, so I think it makes sense to try and make players more interested in them since they also put a lot of effort into this darker path. But I don't at all believe that this effort will mean that the good path will feel unrewarding or second to evil, it has not been my impression during EA and it wouldn't make sense for them to sacrifice the more popular choice to tip the scales in favor of going evil.
I hope this clarifies my previous post which admitedly came off as excessively confrontational.
It does clarify your point, and I understand that Kanisatha can come across as a bit fed up with the game and pessimistic.
I think if you see more of Kanisatha's post history, you'd see that while they're frustrated at where the game is currently, they very much WANT to like the game, but is more of a classical heroic type of roleplayer. Then you see things like the Dark Urge, which is the ONLY custom character origin, and it's straight up an evil wet dream. Even the redemption arc of Dark Urge has been shown to be not quite 'clean'.
Take that with early EA insistence from people that the "evil" origin companions were released first, and that we shouldn't worry, because "good" origins would be coming later, and well..we got Karlach, a tiefling with a heart of gold, but sure enough, a dark haunted past. A single "good" origin, in a sea of evil and morally grey.
All of these things have slowly driven Kanisatha cra..i mean made them frustrated with the state of the game. (I jest about the crazy part :D) I myself have had to readjust how I view the game, and I'm now trying to simply enjoy it for what it is, not for what I wish it was, and that's fine for me, but for some it's not.
Thank you. It's very heartening to see that there are at least some people here in this forum who are able to appreciate how it must feel for someone to very badly *want* to be able to play a D&D/BG game, who've been waiting 20+ years to play such a game, only to be presented with such a game that they find utterly poor and disappointing.
Which doesn't necessarily mean it's a bad game. It only means, it doesn't suit your taste and you had totally different expectations about it. I think it's crucial to understand, that there are people (a lot of them, actually), that are very much hyped and thrilled, of what they saw and read so far. There are also others (also many), that may feel the way you feel, because of different reasons (be it a suboptimal cast of characters, turn based combat, not enough homage to BG1 /BG2, or something else entirely). That's the way this industry works, unfortunately. It's like with Bethesda, some were thrilled Fallout went fully 3D, others absolutely despised this direction. Again, this alone didn't define, if Fallout 3 was good or bad game.
Again, just to be clear, I don't take a joy from your disappointment, it sucks to feel that way, but you already know, what kind of game it would be and you must realize it won't change a minute before the launch. I really don't see the point of torturing yourself about the game, that makes you sad or angry.
I have my concerns too, you know. I wasn't that much impressed about the story of DOS2 and I wasn't also as proficient in combat, to breeze through it on Tactician. In other words, DOS2 was a very good game, but that's it. There is a chance I may be overhyping BG3 and it may turn out not to be the game of the year for me, but that's the risk I'm willing to take, being an equally long-time FR fan as you. Moreover, it's precisely because I'm a fan of this setting, I want to keep an open mind, before I play it, and specifically avoided playing EA, not to spoil myself a fresh experience.
Am I a player that usually plays good-aligned characters? - Yes, at least during my first run.
Do I believe that BG1/BG2 had very limited options to role play evil-aligned characters? - Yes, and on top of that, you cannot really compose a full party of evil characters that covers all roles (not to mention having a choice).
Do I believe BG3 remedied that? - Yes, and in the best possible way, by giving me *an option* to play good or evil, with all the ramifications of playing both ways. If you play totally evil lunatic, you will end up with no one left in your party, with everyone being either dead or ditching your sorry arse. Your character may be extremely powerful, but will end up alone and miserable. And I know you don't acknowledge this, but to me personally, redeeming a certain companion in WoTR was one of the most rewarding accomplishments in this game.
Do I believe BG3 won't have enough typical heroic characters? - Yes and no. I wouldn't mind having one such character. A purely good one (not in a zelous way), who would try to stay on this path no matter what. But given the time and resources Larian needs to create another joinable character, one such companion would be enough.
Do I believe BG3 glorifies evil approach and is too brutal? - Not at all. I totally trust Swen Vincke, that this will be a game of choices, and you can play this game as a heroic character (not simply avoid doing evil stuff). The only problematic part may be the tadpole inside your head, which represents evil influence trying to take over your body and mind, but so was Bhaal's blood in original trilogy. The difference is that in BG1/BG2 this aspect was completely ignored from a gameplay perspective and didn't affect your choices. It was just a background. In BG3 tadpole is a real deal, which you must face. Wether you emerge victorious from this struggle or succumb to the powers it gaves, is entirely your choice.
