All I can add to the things already discussed - would be great to get all the scenes and talks available _without_ long resting. Just because it's still counter-intuitive to have a long rest, approximately until "the big reveal on tadpole". And even after. "Things are happening, I do not have much time at all".
1) Update in journal, personal quest of a NPC in question - "he/she wants to discuss personal matters with you"'; 2) Multiple scenes happening per 1 night (uh ah, try to sleep when everyone is on edge and have something to say or do).
They said they fixed Gale, but on my second playthrough after Patch 2 and Hotfix 5 he is still as persistent. I don't see any difference.
He is most ridiculous of all, telling you how he adores his goddess and immediately trying to hit on you afterwards.
But the worst of them all is Halsin. You cannot say anything to him during the tiefling party without him having delusional thoughts about you. The worst part is that the game thinks you have those thoughts too and forces you to initiate a dialogue about it. Even if you ignore this dialogue completely, Halsin will try again in the end.
Regarding friendship: the best ones I had were with those who was totally blocked from romance options in my first playthrough - Karlach, Lae'zel and Wyll (you can block romance by adding companions to your team AFTER the tiefling party). Especially with Karlach. I would call it the one real and true friendship,
after killing Gortash she told me she loves me and in her last scene on the bridge she told she adores me
- both of those with absolutely no romantic implications, just something best friends would say to each other. Wish there were more of those with other characters.
Also, I hate the romantic path with Shadowheart. Maybe I should make a separate thread about it, though. All in all, she is the only one not "pushy", aside from Minsc and Jaheira.
From what I understood, Swen mentioned that the issue with Gale was due to mistakenly setting his opinion bar thresholds too low. However, I'm not a fan of this gamified romance system where relationships seem to boil down to merely filling a friendship meter to access the hidden sex scene.
Companions come to you too fast and sometimes I only have to option between "Lets sleep together" and "get lost" I want to play an RPG, not a dating sim where the goal is to have sex with every party member and maybe some others too.
So my suggestions are: - Build up a relationship with your companions over the full game. Not everyone should want to have sex with you in act 1. - You should have an option to get a friendship with one or several party members. Something like "I like you and I want to be your friend, but I don´t want sex with you just because I said 3 thins that you like."
Maybe I see a part of the problem. Most players will do the personal quest of their companions and they will mostly do it in a way that they help them to fix their problem. But there is a giant difference between "I help you with your problem because it may kill you (or others including myself)" or if I say "I want to romance you." Helping somebody not to explode is not the same as flirting.
Prof. Dr. Dr. Mad S. Tist
World leading expert of artificial stupidity. Because there are too many people who work on artificial intelligence already
And I still think someone at Larian missed the point (or since what it's done is done they are just overlooking it on purpose): the issue with how the game handles "romance" is not (just) that it happens too fast. If anything that's almost secondary to the fact that "romancing mood" seems to be the default mode with all the companions and that there's very little interaction alternative to it.
I already said it in the first pages on this thread, but to reiterate for the sake of future Larian titles: companions should generally default into building up friendship and trust with the main character and initiating a "romance path" should be a deliberate and explicit act left to the player in most cases (I can concede the occasional exception to the rule if "coming in too strong" is a defining personality trait of a companion with some plot relevance, eventually).
Once this is done, I then don't really care even if the game lets you organize entire orgies with all your party members and some bystanders throwed in for good measure.
Last edited by Tuco; 07/09/2311:55 AM.
Party control in Baldur's Gate 3 is a complete mess that begs to be addressed. SAY NO TO THE TOILET CHAIN
From what I understood, Swen mentioned that the issue with Gale was due to mistakenly setting his opinion bar thresholds too low. However, I'm not a fan of this gamified romance system where relationships seem to boil down to merely filling a friendship meter to access the hidden sex scene.
Ah, so it's the matter of the bar. then No wonder nothing's changed, at his "fixed" threshold he just becomes the same weirdo again.
I mean, did you completely reject their advances in Act 1? If you did, I think that stops all romance dialogue options.
It does actually and I wrote feedback to complain about exactly that - all romance options just die after the party, unless Tav has already started something. As
Dark Urge
, if you make a certain choice this means that it will be impossible to start a romance afterwards, which wasn't really great. Especially when we KNOW someone (I've found two so far) really wanted to have a relationship with Tav but only backed down after being told Tav loves someone else. At which point they say "Fair enough" and never insist. I wanted to ... reasses ... the relationship after certain events but wasn't given the option to.
Adventuring is a hard life, sometimes people fall on a dagger multiple times, you know.
I honestly have no idea what the thread starter is talking about. I'm at 480+ hours played right now across 5 playthroughs I have NEVER seen them insisting after the party unless the player agreed to something. The only companion that is annoyingly forward but also vague is Gale, because he interprets any sort of attention as romantic interest very fast. I honestly don't mind, people like that exist and the game offers multiple ways to deal with it. If you're brutally honest (even rude) he will get it faster. Even Gale stops when told "X is for me". Yeah, it's not great that he's so immature (after being together with a Goddess, lol), but I see no issue with having a problematic character like that as long as it doesn't get too far out of hand (which it doesn't).
The game offers options on saying no to every single companion (ranging from "Yuck!" to "Sorry, I don't see you that way") multiple times. Do some of them interpret you taking great interest in their personal lives and putting aside the main quest of saving Faerun to deal with their personal problems as a sign of possible romantic interest? Yes, they do. Many people would at least wonder. Considering many of the companions have a very low charisma score... maybe we can have some understanding :P
In my game Gale's triggers are clearly still broken. Tav was busy romancing Astarion and had definitely said "no thanks to the magic show, Gale" in ACT 1. All seemed fine, until out of nowhere after the first fight in ACT 2 Gale's like: "doesn't fighting turn you on?" Again answering something in the lines of "Gods, no." And yet, as Astarion romance advanced, I was forced to choose between Gale and Astarion and had to break the poor wizard's heart and watch him cry as I told him I chose someone else. I mean, I like the guy, he's sweet, but I definitely didn't do anything to lead him on.
And yes, I suppose Halsin needs some more non-flirty dialogue options that isn't "back off you disgusting bear-dude". There has to be ways to reject everyone in a kind way, actually. And they clearly have to take no for an answer. I mean, I don't want to be mean to everyone. On the other hand, I would never turn down Halsin
I feel like romance overall should be initiated by the player, and that the triggers shouldn't be limited to certain events in game, or rather locked out at certain points. If the player controls the romance, there wouldn't be any feelings of overstepping boundaries and not taking no for an answer, and it could also be possible to initiate romance later in game if that's what one want. Break up with one companion and move on. Maybe you don't start to like someone until the end of ACT 2, but then it's too late the way it is now. It doesn't really feel natural when every companion has a trigger for romance that activates at the exact same time. You've been doing nothing by try to survive with this bunch of strangers and suddenly you're sitting there with four people who want to hook up with you out of nowhere and one dude who wants to bite you. Like, I know my sweaty blood-covered not-showered-in-months body is amazing and all that, but come on, give me some space, please. Or at least let me hit on the one(s) I want instead.
Addition of sexual content filters in general would be very nice actually. It will make the game much more accessible. Should not be limited to romance, brightest example is the act 2 good ending, which is in dire need of a rewrite anyway.
To add to the discussion. I like all the companions, some more, some less, as it usually is. I even want to do a playthrough of female Dark Urge/somebody else and then hook them up and I am straight white guy.
Having said that, the sheer number of gay characters in the game, which often feel forced or added just for the sake of it doesn't make me pleased to see that. It doesn't help that all companions are player-sexual. Would it be too much to ask for 1 or 2 characters that are not player-specific? For example making Shadowheart only attracted to men (though Half Orcs could have harder time, similar to Drow having a bit of a reputation), while Gale/Wyll/Halsin anyone really could only be attracted to females.
When I was romancing Shadowheart as a male Gnome and still had Wyll offer me a dance, I felt insulted. Because it felt like my choice of romance partner wasn't respected. It's something that companions should get. If you romance a character, other companions should get A BLOODY HINT!!!
It gets worse, as many important characters you interact with turn out to be gay for some reason: Isobel, One of the Deep Gnomes in the Grymforge, Omelum and his Hobgoblin partner, just to name a new. It often doesn't add anything to the game and only seems to distract from it. While I don't see Larian making preference specific versions of the game, would it be too much to at least add a setting: "Limited lgbttv content".
This isn't me bashing any gay people or having something against them, but in general I think that there is a way to add men-to-men, female-to-female romance without making it obnoxious or trying to score some points with LGBTTV community. Anyone remembers how Activision director came out on stage wearing a pride pin on his chest, before his news about Diablo Immoral or 4, can't remember at thin point?
As for good written gay characters, allow me to introduce Arcade and Veronica from Fallout New Vegas. Great characters first and foremost, who you only learn that they are not into opposite sex, by actually getting to know them better. Plus in 2010, they had plenty of characters like this, but if you wanted to interact with them in a bit of more romantic way, you needed a perk. So, it stands a reason, we should be able to toggle it in a setting.
Suggesting there's too much queer content in this game is simply bigotry.
Nice strawman. So, lgbttv get a ton of content for them and simply wanting it reduced is bigotry? Listen up, I have got nothing against gay people or trans for that matter. They live their lives, I live mine and we can both agree to live and let live.
The problem is that there is a difference of letting people pick and choose if they want to be gay or not and shoving political correctness down our throat just for the sake of it. BG3 does the latter. Heaven Forbid I don’t want my male character to be hit on by every single male in the camp, especially after I romanced Shadowheart, etc.
There is a way to keep both sides happy, by simply letting the player to choose if they want such interactions to happen. Unfortunately, there is no option like this in settings. And guess want nothing prevents people from simply killing all those gay characters if they piss you off, so at least there is that and they aren't essential for the game. Do I do that? Also no. Am I tired of this kind of forced interactions? Yes, I am.
It also ties in broken romance system, where you are hit on by everyone even if my character would be perfectly fine being bros with Gale, Wyll, etc.
Annoyed Player, your language here is not acceptable. I don’t have time right now to explain why in any detail but you really should know that this isn’t the way to talk on a global, diverse forum that welcomes people of all sexualities and expects all forum members to show each other civility and respect.
"You may call it 'nonsense' if you like, but I've heard nonsense, compared with which that would be as sensible as a dictionary!"
Suggesting there's too much queer content in this game is simply bigotry.
Nice strawman. So, lgbttv get a ton of content for them and simply wanting it reduced is bigotry? Listen up, I have got nothing against gay people or trans for that matter. They live their lives, I live mine and we can both agree to live and let live.
The problem is that there is a difference of letting people pick and choose if they want to be gay or not and shoving political correctness down our throat just for the sake of it. BG3 does the latter. Heaven Forbid I don’t want my male character to be hit on by every single male in the camp, especially after I romanced Shadowheart, etc.
There is a way to keep both sides happy, by simply letting the player to choose if they want such interactions to happen. Unfortunately, there is no option like this in settings. And guess want nothing prevents people from simply killing all those gay characters if they piss you off, so at least there is that and they aren't essential for the game. Do I do that? Also no. Am I tired of this kind of forced interactions? Yes, I am.
It also ties in broken romance system, where you are hit on by everyone even if my character would be perfectly fine being bros with Gale, Wyll, etc.
Sad that people get so accustomed to having their worldview pandered to that they start to think it's the default state of the universe or something. Then when demographics shift, they lose their minds over the idea of other worldviews and lifestyles being acknowledged
Your desire to have the game pretend lgbtq doesn't exist for your own personal comfort is basically demanding that the developers treat your specific political and sociological preferences as the "default" and the stuff you don't like as some "other" extra content that can be disabled at your leisure.
Sorry bub, your worldview, sociological and sexual values are not the default, and developers shouldn't feel any more obligated to pander to you than to any other worldview or letter of lgbtq.
Suggesting there's too much queer content in this game is simply bigotry.
Nice strawman. So, lgbttv get a ton of content for them and simply wanting it reduced is bigotry? Listen up, I have got nothing against gay people or trans for that matter. They live their lives, I live mine and we can both agree to live and let live.
The problem is that there is a difference of letting people pick and choose if they want to be gay or not and shoving political correctness down our throat just for the sake of it. BG3 does the latter. Heaven Forbid I don’t want my male character to be hit on by every single male in the camp, especially after I romanced Shadowheart, etc.
There is a way to keep both sides happy, by simply letting the player to choose if they want such interactions to happen. Unfortunately, there is no option like this in settings. And guess want nothing prevents people from simply killing all those gay characters if they piss you off, so at least there is that and they aren't essential for the game. Do I do that? Also no. Am I tired of this kind of forced interactions? Yes, I am.
It also ties in broken romance system, where you are hit on by everyone even if my character would be perfectly fine being bros with Gale, Wyll, etc.
I don't know what you did, no male character ever got romantic with me. I even had Gale and Shadowhearts approval almost maxed out, but never had romantic interactions with both, because I didn't trigger them. Maybe don't trigger romances you don't want?
Suggesting there's too much queer content in this game is simply bigotry.
Nice strawman. So, lgbttv get a ton of content for them and simply wanting it reduced is bigotry? Listen up, I have got nothing against gay people or trans for that matter. They live their lives, I live mine and we can both agree to live and let live.
The problem is that there is a difference of letting people pick and choose if they want to be gay or not and shoving political correctness down our throat just for the sake of it. BG3 does the latter. Heaven Forbid I don’t want my male character to be hit on by every single male in the camp, especially after I romanced Shadowheart, etc.
There is a way to keep both sides happy, by simply letting the player to choose if they want such interactions to happen. Unfortunately, there is no option like this in settings. And guess want nothing prevents people from simply killing all those gay characters if they piss you off, so at least there is that and they aren't essential for the game. Do I do that? Also no. Am I tired of this kind of forced interactions? Yes, I am.
It also ties in broken romance system, where you are hit on by everyone even if my character would be perfectly fine being bros with Gale, Wyll, etc.
Sad that people get so accustomed to having their worldview pandered to that they start to think it's the default state of the universe or something. Then when demographics shift, they lose their minds over the idea of other worldviews and lifestyles being acknowledged
Your desire to have the game pretend lgbtq doesn't exist for your own personal comfort is basically demanding that the developers treat your specific political and sociological preferences as the "default" and the stuff you don't like as some "other" extra content that can be disabled at your leisure.
Sorry bub, your worldview, sociological and sexual values are not the default, and developers shouldn't feel any more obligated to pander to you than to any other worldview or letter of lgbtq.
Right, instead they should pander to other minorities and everyone who exists in the world. Forgive me for making an assumption that we are all equal and nobody should be treated more special than anyone else, because of their sexuality, gender or the fact that they identify themselves as a lettuce for some reason.
My beef is not with lgbt people, my beef is with the fact that they are prioritized over everyone else. Case in point, we get at least 3 couples in acts 1 and 2 alone that are into their same-sex partners: Gnomes Twice in Grymforge, Isobel and her lover, some female goblin with a crush on Minthara, etc. You get the point.
Now, how many of opposite sex relationships are in the game that are well in sight? I can think of one: two tieflings in Druid's grove arguing about their tavern of choice.
And no matter how you slice it, lgbt are what less than 10% of the world's population? Just to be generous. Make no mistake, the game shouldn't be sexist, racist, bigotic, misognistic, etc. You get the idea.
Giving everyone a fair representation seems logical, but it doesn't happen here. Same-sex relationships are represented more than opposite-sex, at least in acts 1 and 2. Can't speak about about act 3, due it's unfinished nature.
If you haven't noticed, I am not arguing for removal of all these characters. I am not saying that lgbt have got no right to exist or something like this. I am arguing that both sides should be represented fairly and equally. That doesn't happen here. So, is my worldview shattered? No, there is already plenty of movies, games, etc that already do that. The newest Barbie movie comes to mind.
Originally Posted by Draganta
Originally Posted by Annoyed Player
Originally Posted by Timon
Suggesting there's too much queer content in this game is simply bigotry.
Nice strawman. So, lgbttv get a ton of content for them and simply wanting it reduced is bigotry? Listen up, I have got nothing against gay people or trans for that matter. They live their lives, I live mine and we can both agree to live and let live.
The problem is that there is a difference of letting people pick and choose if they want to be gay or not and shoving political correctness down our throat just for the sake of it. BG3 does the latter. Heaven Forbid I don’t want my male character to be hit on by every single male in the camp, especially after I romanced Shadowheart, etc.
There is a way to keep both sides happy, by simply letting the player to choose if they want such interactions to happen. Unfortunately, there is no option like this in settings. And guess want nothing prevents people from simply killing all those gay characters if they piss you off, so at least there is that and they aren't essential for the game. Do I do that? Also no. Am I tired of this kind of forced interactions? Yes, I am.
It also ties in broken romance system, where you are hit on by everyone even if my character would be perfectly fine being bros with Gale, Wyll, etc.
I don't know what you did, no male character ever got romantic with me. I even had Gale and Shadowhearts approval almost maxed out, but never had romantic interactions with both, because I didn't trigger them. Maybe don't trigger romances you don't want?
Odd, I had it trigger all of the time, pretty much. I romanced Shart early on in Act 1, did the Tiefling party and had Gale comment on my musk, comming onto me, while Wyll asked for a dance well into act 2, despite my character and Shart being together since act 1. I blame the broken triggers on that.
For the same reason I've always posed;—the notion of any type of filter such as this being innocent also presents the prose of a lie. Unless it's purely an option to simply turn romances off.
It presents the possibility of an exclusive nature—and nothing about this game is exclusive as there's an opening for everyone.
If you were to present a filter of the sorts, you risk pampering to the potential bigotry that will most likely incur as a result. I've been over on the Steam forum, and some of the people there are, to put it gently, disgusting with their behavior toward the LGBTQ+ community, to the extent of making light the idea of killing every individual that identified as such in the same writ or chagrin that is meant to be cruel and in gest.
If not for that simple, vitriolic element, I would personally be all for an option like this. But that fact alone that I frequently see Transphobic, Homophobic, and Misogynous comments regularly being made elsewhere is what makes it a hard "no" from me.
I understand there are respectful, simple folk who want it. They in-fact deserve to have the option, but you can see the dilemma here.
I don't know what you did, no male character ever got romantic with me. I even had Gale and Shadowhearts approval almost maxed out, but never had romantic interactions with both, because I didn't trigger them. Maybe don't trigger romances you don't want?
Why oh why does this line keep on getting rehashed??
I'm playing the game with Wyll in my party. We've learnt his father is in Moonrise towers and decide to rescue him. There is a '!' icon above his head. I click on it, no doubt he's got something to say about his father.
Nope. He's doing a stupid little dance and thinks my MC would somehow be interested, even though he's seeing SH.
I gave Wyll zero encouragement but somewhere a trigger flipped and he decided to come onto my MC. It's both foolhardy and stupid.
Why did he not sound my MC out first? You know, subtly, like people do. Nope, all in with a hail Mary pass.
Then you might have odd timing of Halsin or Gale doing this in succession too. It's borderline ludicrous companions taking such intimacy gambits, I can't see any strong argument for the status quo.
****
Btw, can people rein in the bigot and phobe cheapshots please? It's intellectually irresponsible to bandy around such terms frivolously.
Prof. Dr. Dr. Mad S. Tist 
