|
|
|
member
|
member
Joined: Sep 2023
|
He is not as much complex as he is inconsistent and incoherent.
The guy can never decide if he is benevolent or is manipulating everyone. If he is human or a mindflayer. And just when you get a scene that provides some clarity he just acts like that scene never happens. Great. As is the nature of a manipulator, they shift and change to meet their own ends. I think the Emperor as an idea is great but I wish they had executed it better. He is a billion times more interesting than Daisy ever was imho. And is honestly one of the few elements of the story that still intrigues me after the game is over and makes me want to engage in speculation. Probably exactly because the execution is kinda meh and needs expanding/clarifying. Orpheus should get as much screentime and backstory as he does and we should 10000% be able to free him before the very end of the game. Maybe we could obtain another item that can also break infernal chains if we do a quest for Vlaakith or Voss in act 2 and raphael's hammer becomes a last resort if we don't do that quest (nor the house of hope). This said, since I've heard a lot of people say they don't like the Balduran twist (valid, by the way!) I just want to let the devs know that for me personally that was what really made me care for the character, even when it comes to the "romance" (quotation marks needed, since it is a bit of a meme and clumsily implemented) because it gives off the same fallen heroic figure vibes that I personally really enjoy in games like dark souls or bloodborne and which I was not expecting from BG3 at all. "When the people think his name, or see his likeness, they must imagine a hero, not a horror" is a great line from Duke Ravengard and the only time the game allows us to discuss this outside of the Ansur quest if we ignore a few quips from the narrator her and there. It gave me big Knight Artorias / Laurence the First Vicar vibes. There is absolutely 0 reason why both can't be in the game at the same time, and I believe that would be the most optimal iteration. Remember both need not occupy their initial place in the story. The Emperor would need a slight rewrite, and I believe Daisy being a real person with a slight rewrite as well would be the best. The Balduran twist makes no sense for a million reasons, the most notable one being that you do not retain your sense of self nor your memories after changing, despite the game trying to tell you that the Emperor randomly does.
Last edited by Surge90sf; 13/09/23 04:13 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
stranger
|
|
stranger
Joined: Aug 2023
|
Here's the thing EA players on this forum need to understand: you are a minority. The majority of players now-- and we know it hit close to 1 million at ONE TIME on Steam alone-- never touched EA. They don't know who Daisy is, they don't care who Daisy is. You start changing around NPCs and storybeats now to shove in Daisy, the majority of players are going to WTF and be upset. No doubt, Larian knows this. Maybe they'll add Daisy in as a DLC companion, maybe later they will patch her in as an optional companion. But you'll pretty much just have to deal with the fact most players will never care who she is and I doubt they'd want a whole bunch of stuff rearranged and their playthroughs messesd up to add her.
|
|
|
|
|
|
member
|
|
member
Joined: Sep 2023
|
The playthroughs are already messed up though. It is evident that this rewrite Emperor-Daisy has not been thought through.
And tbh, EA players are the most loyal part of the fan base. When I finished the game on steam, according to achievements only 8% of players have completed the game. Sooo.. Is that the kind of people you want to cater to ahead of your most loyal fans? I can just jump ship and find something else, however Larian has to continue as a company.
|
|
|
|
|
|
journeyman
|
|
journeyman
Joined: Oct 2020
|
They replaced Daisy at last minute because they thought it didn't worked out. So why would they add her in again? They can (and should) fix the Guardian/Emperor - no wonder he has plot holes and issues when he was a late rewrite.
Daisy was obvious tempting and evil (burning baldurs gate). If you not playing evil, why would anyone be tempted by her? But with the Guardian you might have doubts, especially if he is trying to get you to eat tadpoles, but still helpful and protecting you. So in my opinion more interesting then Daisy.
Maybe if they add Daisy as 2nd figure along the Guardian and both are trying to get Tav on their side, but then Daisy needs a rewrite too because as it was in EA I would always choose the Guardian as Daisy just screams evil to me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
journeyman
|
|
journeyman
Joined: Oct 2020
|
And tbh, EA players are the most loyal part of the fan base. When I finished the game on steam, according to achievements only 8% of players have completed the game. Sooo.. Is that the kind of people you want to cater to ahead of your most loyal fans? I can just jump ship and find something else, however Larian has to continue as a company. You mean full release? You know not everyone is as fast as you or others? I am still on my first playthrough and I played EA so I did know act 1. I don't have much time for gaming so just because people are slow or taking their time (instead of rushing through) they are worth less? EA was how many years? If Daisy was so great in EA so why did Larian replaced Daisy? I am not saying the Guardian is perfect, but that doesn't mean Daisy was working for all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Jul 2009
|
And tbh, EA players are the most loyal part of the fan base. When I finished the game on steam, according to achievements only 8% of players have completed the game. Sooo.. Is that the kind of people you want to cater to ahead of your most loyal fans? I can just jump ship and find something else, however Larian has to continue as a company. You mean full release? You know not everyone is as fast as you or others? I am still on my first playthrough and I played EA so I did know act 1. I don't have much time for gaming so just because people are slow or taking their time (instead of rushing through) they are worth less? EA was how many years? If Daisy was so great in EA so why did Larian replaced Daisy? I am not saying the Guardian is perfect, but that doesn't mean Daisy was working for all. Mainly because Larian decided last minute to remove long term consequences, so they needed to change Daisy into something where it doesn't matter if you trust them or not and can't make any decision that locks you into a path. Hence the erratic nature of the Emperor.
Last edited by Ixal; 14/09/23 02:13 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
member
|
|
member
Joined: Sep 2023
|
They replaced Daisy at last minute because they thought it didn't worked out. So why would they add her in again? They can (and should) fix the Guardian/Emperor - no wonder he has plot holes and issues when he was a late rewrite.
Daisy was obvious tempting and evil (burning baldurs gate). If you not playing evil, why would anyone be tempted by her? But with the Guardian you might have doubts, especially if he is trying to get you to eat tadpoles, but still helpful and protecting you. So in my opinion more interesting then Daisy.
Maybe if they add Daisy as 2nd figure along the Guardian and both are trying to get Tav on their side, but then Daisy needs a rewrite too because as it was in EA I would always choose the Guardian as Daisy just screams evil to me. This is a strange way of thinking about it. That's like saying the tiefling party did not work. In EA it did not work because any and all living things that could walk and crawl would offer to have sex with you, and that was all there was to it, I remember I almost had to stop playing right there. BUT IT WAS EA. They still kept it, and made it better. And naturally, Daisy would not be exactly like she was on EA, she would be way more fleshed out, just like everything else compared to early access.
Last edited by Surge90sf; 14/09/23 01:01 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Aug 2020
|
They replaced Daisy at last minute because they thought it didn't worked out. So why would they add her in again? They can (and should) fix the Guardian/Emperor - no wonder he has plot holes and issues when he was a late rewrite.
Daisy was obvious tempting and evil (burning baldurs gate). If you not playing evil, why would anyone be tempted by her? But with the Guardian you might have doubts, especially if he is trying to get you to eat tadpoles, but still helpful and protecting you. So in my opinion more interesting then Daisy.
Maybe if they add Daisy as 2nd figure along the Guardian and both are trying to get Tav on their side, but then Daisy needs a rewrite too because as it was in EA I would always choose the Guardian as Daisy just screams evil to me. This is a strange way of thinking about it. That's like saying the tiefling party did not work. In EA it did not work because any and all living things that could walk and crawl would offer to have sex with you, and that was all there was to it, I remember I almost had to stop playing right there. BUT IT WAS EA. They still kept it, and made it better. And naturally, Daisy would not be exactly like she was on EA, she would be way more fleshed out, just like everything else compared to early access. The thing is, they did change Daisy. They changed them into the guardian. I'd say your example is illustrative of the fact they clearly felt Daisy just did not work for their purposes on a fundamental level. Whatever it is you and other people liked about Daisy, Larian clearly felt that they did not work and thought the change was simply better. And importantly, we don't know how Daisy would have turned out, we only have theories and guesswork. I think the guardian probably needed a few more months to cook, but I think that on a conceptual level hey work far better than Daisy did. Daisy was just red flags from minute one. They pushed too hard and were just so obviously sinister that you knew you couldn't trust them. They were encouraging you to give into the tadpole just as much as the guardian, even if the whole tadpole power up mechanic of consuming more is pretty dumb. But Daisy encouraged you to saying that you were becoming something greater, making it really hard for you or your character to not think she meant full transformation. Meanwhile Meanwhile guardian explicitly says they're protecting you from changing. They're supporting your efforts to defeat the absolute and want to stop it as well. Immediately more trustworthy, but still with some red flags. Just not ALL the red flags like Daisy. I think it would be far easier to make the guardian work and feel better than it would have been to make Daisy work and feel better, as evidenced by the fact they turned Daisy into the guardian to try try fix them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
member
|
|
member
Joined: Sep 2023
|
They also felt epilogues would detract from the ending and thought a 2 min talk on the beach was enough. Sometimes you do stupid shit, like Larian did by forcing you to be under the Emperors control the entire game. Who honestly enjoys not having their own fate in their own hands for 89 out of 90 hours? Come on.
And FYI, I did not even see Daisy in EA, I am going off of what others have posted. The way the guardian you make at the start of the game end up not even existing feels like bad game design, why on earth would I care about making my guardian from now on? Daisy could have easily been made less obviously evil. And she could also easily have the same function as the guardian has now if she was a real person. It all just falls apart when the Emperor shows up and your character never existed and you are forced to non-sensically side with him because reasons.
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Aug 2020
|
Honestly I don't think anyone before thought that Daisy was a real person either. All the theories were that she was a vision constructed by the tadpole or some other party, but no one thought she was a real person. Daisy was, as far as we could tell in Act 1, fulfilling the same role as the guardian. The scene where we were saved from the fall played out the same, she said are was protecting us from... something. Daisy might have suited some people's tastes better, but I don't believe she was going to function substantively different from the guardian in terms of her role within the story.
|
|
|
|
|
|
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Jul 2009
|
Honestly I don't think anyone before thought that Daisy was a real person either. All the theories were that she was a vision constructed by the tadpole or some other party, but no one thought she was a real person. Daisy was, as far as we could tell in Act 1, fulfilling the same role as the guardian. The scene where we were saved from the fall played out the same, she said are was protecting us from... something. Daisy might have suited some people's tastes better, but I don't believe she was going to function substantively different from the guardian in terms of her role within the story. She would have functioned differently because she was a danger to you while the emperor is not. One of the worst things Larian did was removing all danger and consequences from the tadpoles which goes against the entire narrative of the game. And the switch from daisy to emperor is the most visible part of that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Mar 2020
|
I think that on a conceptual level hey work far better than Daisy did. Daisy was just red flags from minute one. They pushed too hard and were just so obviously sinister that you knew you couldn't trust them. They were encouraging you to give into the tadpole just as much as the guardian, even if the whole tadpole power up mechanic of consuming more is pretty dumb. But Daisy encouraged you to saying that you were becoming something greater, making it really hard for you or your character to not think she meant full transformation. Meanwhile Meanwhile guardian explicitly says they're protecting you from changing. They're supporting your efforts to defeat the absolute and want to stop it as well. Immediately more trustworthy, but still with some red flags. Just not ALL the red flags like Daisy. I think it would be far easier to make the guardian work and feel better than it would have been to make Daisy work and feel better, as evidenced by the fact they turned Daisy into the guardian to try try fix them. Why is that a bad thing? I just don't see distrusting Daisy as a flaw in the original plot. If if the goal of plot 1.0 was to force good players to do things the hard way and evil parties to do things the easy way then it worked. You knew that using the tadpole had consequences - you could stride into the goblin camp on "authority" and even get a few powers along the way. And if you stopped before you became a true soul all was well. You would find out the disadvantages when you met Nere and the game became "how much do I use before losing myself" Which was the same mechanism as the Slayer in BG2 - insta win any fight / open doors that only gods can open but lose that reputation and eventually face the game over screen.
You're right that we can only imagine what Daisy would be like but lack of trust doesn't seem like a fatal flaw.
Because I played EA I can't truly imagine what a new player would experience but I find it hard to believe that people are any less suspicious of the Guardian - it's only that your suspicions aren't are rewarded. I'm searching for a cure but this strange voice in my head tells me to "consume" even more tadpoles? Every time I get near a possible cure - like the Gith Creche - it tells me to go away? Uh, kinda sounds like you don't want me to be cured my dear "Guardian"
And the game assumes we trust the Guardian long after it's clear we have no reason to do so.
(paraphrasing from memory)
Guardian: If you want to take my life do so now. **Kneels and puts sword over heart**
(Tav thinks: this a projection from the tadpole, a elder brain or mind flayer - stabbing won't do anything)
*tav stabs*
Guardian is annoyed but quite alive
(Tav thinks - I was hoping your true form would reveal itself but I'm happy to have my suspicions confirmed)
Returns to material plane
Emperor: "I'm glad you've come to your senses"
(tav thinks" $@#% just you wait)
. . .
Suspicions confirmed: Finally gets to kill emperor, game over screen
. . .
reloads
. . .
Tav: "Oh hi soulless lovecraftian monster, can we be frens?"
I think the Emperor reveal was supposed to be shock but I saw it as confirmation - of course a mind flayer wanted to be come a mind flayer . . .
We did meet "Daisy" in the act 3 during the park Bhaalist attack and, truth be told, I wanted to hear what she had to say. What kind alliance was she proposing?
TL;DR I didn't find the Guardian to be any more trustworthy than Daisy but I was dismayed that the game did not support my attitude of distrust. Which, to be fair, was also a flaw of Throne of Bhaal . . .
|
|
|
|
|
|
member
|
|
member
Joined: Sep 2023
|
Honestly I don't think anyone before thought that Daisy was a real person either. All the theories were that she was a vision constructed by the tadpole or some other party, but no one thought she was a real person. Daisy was, as far as we could tell in Act 1, fulfilling the same role as the guardian. The scene where we were saved from the fall played out the same, she said are was protecting us from... something. Daisy might have suited some people's tastes better, but I don't believe she was going to function substantively different from the guardian in terms of her role within the story. I am not saying they did, but I am saying that is what I think would be best. Otherwise why bother creating your guardian? The character does not exist. Something along the lines of: - Netherbrain is attempting to manipulate you, but since a Netherbrain does not know what it is to be human, they are using a medium, perhaps mindcontrolling a dreamwalker into cohersing you to join their side or whatever plot is suitable. - Same only with rogue mindflayer (Emperor?) Now you have a reason to create your guardian at the start of the game, and it can easily branch into intriguing plots where you see "Daisy" trying to break free. You get to see if you feel compasionate towards her and maybe you can save her later, maybe she is evil and also has an agenda, which she will pursue once she breaks free. Who knows. But I honestly despise having to create a character who serves no purpose in the story, as a design choice. The Emperor going on and on acting like a human makes no sense either, because he is not one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Aug 2020
|
I think that on a conceptual level hey work far better than Daisy did. Daisy was just red flags from minute one. They pushed too hard and were just so obviously sinister that you knew you couldn't trust them. They were encouraging you to give into the tadpole just as much as the guardian, even if the whole tadpole power up mechanic of consuming more is pretty dumb. But Daisy encouraged you to saying that you were becoming something greater, making it really hard for you or your character to not think she meant full transformation. Meanwhile Meanwhile guardian explicitly says they're protecting you from changing. They're supporting your efforts to defeat the absolute and want to stop it as well. Immediately more trustworthy, but still with some red flags. Just not ALL the red flags like Daisy. I think it would be far easier to make the guardian work and feel better than it would have been to make Daisy work and feel better, as evidenced by the fact they turned Daisy into the guardian to try try fix them. Why is that a bad thing? I just don't see distrusting Daisy as a flaw in the original plot. If if the goal of plot 1.0 was to force good players to do things the hard way and evil parties to do things the easy way then it worked. You knew that using the tadpole had consequences - you could stride into the goblin camp on "authority" and even get a few powers along the way. And if you stopped before you became a true soul all was well. You would find out the disadvantages when you met Nere and the game became "how much do I use before losing myself" Which was the same mechanism as the Slayer in BG2 - insta win any fight / open doors that only gods can open but lose that reputation and eventually face the game over screen.
You're right that we can only imagine what Daisy would be like but lack of trust doesn't seem like a fatal flaw.
Because I played EA I can't truly imagine what a new player would experience but I find it hard to believe that people are any less suspicious of the Guardian - it's only that your suspicions aren't are rewarded. I'm searching for a cure but this strange voice in my head tells me to "consume" even more tadpoles? Every time I get near a possible cure - like the Gith Creche - it tells me to go away? Uh, kinda sounds like you don't want me to be cured my dear "Guardian"
And the game assumes we trust the Guardian long after it's clear we have no reason to do so.
(paraphrasing from memory)
Guardian: If you want to take my life do so now. **Kneels and puts sword over heart**
(Tav thinks: this a projection from the tadpole, a elder brain or mind flayer - stabbing won't do anything)
*tav stabs*
Guardian is annoyed but quite alive
(Tav thinks - I was hoping your true form would reveal itself but I'm happy to have my suspicions confirmed)
Returns to material plane
Emperor: "I'm glad you've come to your senses"
(tav thinks" $@#% just you wait)
. . .
Suspicions confirmed: Finally gets to kill emperor, game over screen
. . .
reloads
. . .
Tav: "Oh hi soulless lovecraftian monster, can we be frens?"
I think the Emperor reveal was supposed to be shock but I saw it as confirmation - of course a mind flayer wanted to be come a mind flayer . . .
We did meet "Daisy" in the act 3 during the park Bhaalist attack and, truth be told, I wanted to hear what she had to say. What kind alliance was she proposing?
TL;DR I didn't find the Guardian to be any more trustworthy than Daisy but I was dismayed that the game did not support my attitude of distrust. Which, to be fair, was also a flaw of Throne of Bhaal . . .
Why is that a bad thing? Her purpose was clearly to tempt us, but her presence was always a massive deterrent. The guardian is suspicious, but to be at least Daisy wasn't even suspicious, she was so far past suspicious that I could not imagine a context where she wasn't just plain the wrong choice. I only every played jnto the tadpole once just to see, it simply never felt natural to take the risk that Daisy's presence so brightly advertised. So I never used the tadpole and never dealt with Daisy, I don't even know what youre referring to with Nere and consequences. When I played a good character who used the powers here and there out of desperation, I could only ever justify using it once because then came another dream and a massive reminder of how bad an idea this was. The guardian lulled me into a sense of security even before I knew there were no consequences. I felt like "Okay, this is a being I can talk to negotiate with. They're not on the side of the absolute like I always assumed Daisy was, I knew their end goal wasn't my transformation so there was some capacity for managing things there. Daisy was just a constant red flag not to engage. Honestly I don't think anyone before thought that Daisy was a real person either. All the theories were that she was a vision constructed by the tadpole or some other party, but no one thought she was a real person. Daisy was, as far as we could tell in Act 1, fulfilling the same role as the guardian. The scene where we were saved from the fall played out the same, she said are was protecting us from... something. Daisy might have suited some people's tastes better, but I don't believe she was going to function substantively different from the guardian in terms of her role within the story. I am not saying they did, but I am saying that is what I think would be best. Otherwise why bother creating your guardian? The character does not exist. Something along the lines of: - Netherbrain is attempting to manipulate you, but since a Netherbrain does not know what it is to be human, they are using a medium, perhaps mindcontrolling a dreamwalker into cohersing you to join their side or whatever plot is suitable. - Same only with rogue mindflayer (Emperor?) Now you have a reason to create your guardian at the start of the game, and it can easily branch into intriguing plots where you see "Daisy" trying to break free. You get to see if you feel compasionate towards her and maybe you can save her later, maybe she is evil and also has an agenda, which she will pursue once she breaks free. Who knows. But I honestly despise having to create a character who serves no purpose in the story, as a design choice. The Emperor going on and on acting like a human makes no sense either, because he is not one. Honestly I think even in the Daisy version, this system was ill conceived. Back then she was meant to be a seducer, meant to appeal sexually and that's why we could design them. But we had no context for what they are and the result wasn't sexy, it was creepy and invasive. Which if that was what Larian was going for, they decided it didn't work. The character could have just been pre-set like any other and it wouldn't have mattered, either with Daisy or Guardian.
Last edited by Gray Ghost; 14/09/23 06:43 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
apprentice
|
|
apprentice
Joined: Sep 2023
|
I still can't get over how idiotic the romance thing was, like it came totally out of nowhere and made me feel uncomfortable and this was on top of already being irritated that Gale and Wyll were constantly hitting on me even tho I was trying really hard just to be friends with them.
The Emperor trying to get inside my pants is probably one of the most baffling romance things I've ever encountered in a RPG it really baffles me how they thought that was a good idea.
|
|
|
|
|
|
journeyman
|
|
journeyman
Joined: Sep 2023
|
I largely disagree, I think you should evaluate the emperor as if you had never played EA. Daisy was obviously evil, if you had not played ea though would you immediately be suspicious of the guardian? Probably not, I do agree that it makes no sense not to present as balduran and furthering makes no sense not to appear to all characters as the same thing. After all 6 people having a dream about different people telling them the same thing seems a bit like manipulation, but if you all see the same dream figure not so much.
So agree that the presentation of the guardian is bad, but the guardian is a better choice than daisy on the overall.
Jumping in late but to add, as someone who’s ever played EA nor even read about it - I just played BG1 and 2 a long, loooong time ago. I distrusted the Emperor/Guardian immediately. The fact that you’re customizing them to your liking is kinda sus but so far so good. However, as the quoted post mentioned, when you realize everyone infected is having the same dreams with their “ideal” guardian figures telling you the same things… eh. Red flags. And as you start finding out more about them, it seems he increasingly contradicts what he implied before, or starts using purposefully ambiguous phrasing of things. I mean, he does help you at first and I was surprised to find out they were being tricked by the elder brain to believe they were free. But the insisting on the tadpole use adds to the suspicion. Even without even knowing who Daisy is/was (I’m fascinated learning it here), I guess a great number of people would still be wary of the guardian.
Rawr.
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Mar 2020
|
@grey_ghost They're not on the side of the absolute like I always assumed Daisy was, I knew their end goal wasn't my transformation so there was some capacity for managing things there. Daisy was just a constant red flag not to engage. Interesting, thanks  I never got that from the Guardian. I always assumed their end goal was my transformation. In the revised plot the search for a cure become a McGuffin but I never felt compelled to leave the McGuffin behind. I just talked to Nettie about cure and my knight 'in shining armor wants to swallow a tadpole? Gets downright enthusiastic about swallowing tadpoles when we kill Gut - "that's a true soul parasite brimming with power" You know what you should do with it? Infect yourself even more. So I always assumed the Guardian was aiming for my transformation. And I can't imagine a run in which I would consume tadpoles. I guess it's a matter of taste but it still befuddles me. Resisting temptation is fun. I enjoyed Mizorra's seductions and I told her to go away. I enjoyed Raphel (great voice actor) and ended killing him and looting his house. Both were entirely sus and not be trusted - and resisting their temptations a foiling their plots really paid off with the best fight in the game and the best loot. And of course in BG1 & 2 the dream visitors were sus - I resisted Bhaal's temptations and enjoyed doing so So, to belabor the point, I think Larian devoted a great deal of energy to fixing something that wasn't broken. While we don't know if that's what led to a broken end game but I suspect it was. But this is in the great bg2 tradition I guess - BG2 was also rewritten at the last moment and I would have preferred the original plot . . . @sailorgundam Glad to know others who didn't play EA felt the same way!
Last edited by KillerRabbit; 15/09/23 09:29 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Aug 2020
|
@grey_ghost They're not on the side of the absolute like I always assumed Daisy was, I knew their end goal wasn't my transformation so there was some capacity for managing things there. Daisy was just a constant red flag not to engage. Interesting, thanks I never got that from the Guardian. I always assumed their end goal was my transformation. In the revised plot the search for a cure become a McGuffin but I never felt compelled to leave the McGuffin behind. I just talked to Nettie about cure and my knight 'in shining armor wants to swallow a tadpole? Gets downright enthusiastic about swallowing tadpoles when we kill Gut - "that's a true soul parasite brimming with power" You know what you should do with it? Infect yourself even more. So I always assumed the Guardian was aiming for my transformation. And I can't imagine a run in which I would consume tadpoles. I guess it's a matter of taste but it still befuddles me. Resisting temptation is fun. I enjoyed Mizorra's seductions and I told her to go away. I enjoyed Raphel (great voice actor) and ended killing him and looting his house. Both were entirely sus and not be trusted - and resisting their temptations a foiling their plots really paid off with the best fight in the game and the best loot. And of course in BG1 & 2 the dream visitors were sus - I resisted Bhaal's temptations and enjoyed doing so So, to belabor the point, I think Larian devoted a great deal of energy to fixing something that wasn't broken. While we don't know if that's what led to a broken end game but I suspect it was. But this is in the great bg2 tradition I guess - BG2 was also rewritten at the last moment and I would have preferred the original plot . . . A fascinating point of view. I suspected the guardian might want my transformation but I always felt like killing the absolute was their main goal, so not our transformation, which is a meaningful distinction in my mind. I get that resisting temptation is fun, but I actually found the Guardian far more tempting than Daisy ever was. Daisy was like a gold bar hanging over a bottomless pit. It was just so obviously telegraphed that trying to go for it could only be bad and I couldn't trust any of the good being offered. maybe it's a consequence of me not responding to sexual enticement and seduction well. It always just felt gross and dubious and that's what I focused on. Her promises of power in the form of killing and destroying things? My characters don't want that. But the Guardian appealing to the good I could do with the power, that made me feel like it was an actual dilemma. Like I was holding myself back from protecting people by not taking the power.
Funny you should mention Raphael, because he was another character whose temptation I think worked. I was really tempted to accept his deal for the hammer. Because he was offering something I actually wanted. I and my characters never wanted the tadpole powers and Daisy just reinforced that by being creepy and making them so overtly evil. The Guardian meanwhile focused on all the good that could be done with them, made me actually want them and presented them in not the most obviously evil way possible
|
|
|
|
|
|
member
|
|
member
Joined: Sep 2023
|
I know you are not replying to me here.
But I find it strange that people just assume that Daisy would just stay like the initial iteration of her, that would be an early draft would it not? For me the main problem with the guardian is that it turns out to be the Emperor, who you are given no chance to escape the hold of, for 90 hours of the 95 hour game. You are forced to nod along like an idiot to railroaded plot points. Why am I not allowed to join the githyanki guard during the first meeting with the Emperor? It is Orpheus power shielding me, not the Emperor. If I made a deal with Oprheus for him to shield me while I get the hammer I am pretty sure he would take it.
And yes, Raphael is fantastic, but his temptations are void, because once again you are railroaded. Why am I never given the option for him to remove the tadpole? The hammer choice is also void because you are railroaded into choose X squid anyway.
All in all, any logical(any not insane) character in DnD would not rest a second until the tadpole is gone, as they would know what turning involves. Loosing everything that you are. And so the way the plot forces you to walk around 90 hours with a tadpole in your head is ridiculous and annoying, extremely annoying. Removing it is your sole motivation for the first 40 hours of the game. What the hell is this?
So I guess all the railroading involving the Emperor is my problem here, not the absence of Daisy. Though I wish she would turn out to be an actual character, in the guardian form or the Daisy iteration.
|
|
|
|
|
|
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Jul 2009
|
I know you are not replying to me here.
But I find it strange that people just assume that Daisy would just stay like the initial iteration of her, that would be an early draft would it not? For me the main problem with the guardian is that it turns out to be the Emperor, who you are given no chance to escape the hold of, for 90 hours of the 95 hour game. You are forced to nod along like an idiot to railroaded plot points. Why am I not allowed to join the githyanki guard during the first meeting with the Emperor? It is Orpheus power shielding me, not the Emperor. If I made a deal with Oprheus for him to shield me while I get the hammer I am pretty sure he would take it.
And yes, Raphael is fantastic, but his temptations are void, because once again you are railroaded. Why am I never given the option for him to remove the tadpole? The hammer choice is also void because you are railroaded into choose X squid anyway.
All in all, any logical(any not insane) character in DnD would not rest a second until the tadpole is gone, as they would know what turning involves. Loosing everything that you are. And so the way the plot forces you to walk around 90 hours with a tadpole in your head is ridiculous and annoying, extremely annoying. Removing it is your sole motivation for the first 40 hours of the game. What the hell is this?
So I guess all the railroading involving the Emperor is my problem here, not the absence of Daisy. Though I wish she would turn out to be an actual character, in the guardian form or the Daisy iteration. I am rather vocal about bringing back Daisy in some capacity, but when I say daisy I mean the idea behind her and not the EA implementation. You are right the real problem is the Emoeror, the railroading and the lack of decisions and consequences. For tempting you the Guardian does imo wirk better than Daisy.
|
|
|
|
|
