|
|
|
enthusiast
|
enthusiast
Joined: Sep 2023
|
I haven't finished the whole game yet (just finished chapter 2) so I didn't read all the posts in detail to avoid spoilers. I also think that, so far, there are some unexplainable inconsistencies in "the big picture" of the absolute. But I just wanted to propose that a completely coherent story would only be possible in a "visual novella" style game without important choices. So any choices you make are really fake and the story will proceed over 1 linear path from beginning to end.
The more branches and alternative paths that you create on the way, the more difficult it will be to avoid plotholes or inconsistencies.
Personally I'm willing to live with those storyholes to be able to walk different paths. Now of course, I 'm in my first PT, if it turns out that the different paths are illusionary and don't change much in reality (like eating lots of tadpoles and embracing the dream image, vs. rejecting her and all tadpoles) then that would be rather disappointing. This is just not true. BG3 is hardly the first game to offer choice, and other games have pulled off multiple branches of the same story while remaining coherent. (And in fact when you drill right down to it, BG3 does not actually have that many branching paths.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
OP
veteran
Joined: Aug 2020
|
I haven't finished the whole game yet (just finished chapter 2) so I didn't read all the posts in detail to avoid spoilers. I also think that, so far, there are some unexplainable inconsistencies in "the big picture" of the absolute. But I just wanted to propose that a completely coherent story would only be possible in a "visual novella" style game without important choices. So any choices you make are really fake and the story will proceed over 1 linear path from beginning to end.
The more branches and alternative paths that you create on the way, the more difficult it will be to avoid plotholes or inconsistencies.
Personally I'm willing to live with those storyholes to be able to walk different paths. Now of course, I 'm in my first PT, if it turns out that the different paths are illusionary and don't change much in reality (like eating lots of tadpoles and embracing the dream image, vs. rejecting her and all tadpoles) then that would be rather disappointing. I would disagree with this lightly, in the sense that I agree with you that by giving players control of the narrative, it makes it very likely that holes will be introduced into said narrative, but I think that's a question of narrative consistency. Narrative coherence - in my mind at least - is a different thing that's very much achievable. When I say that the narrative is incoherent, I mean that it's various different parts don't work together and results in a story that really doesn't make a lot of sense at several points. Plot holes are one thing, and I think those are acceptable if it means a better story. But the story should still have internal cohesion and those holes should not be present consistently throughout the game.
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Mar 2020
|
I also think that, so far, there are some unexplainable inconsistencies in "the big picture" of the absolute. But I just wanted to propose that a completely coherent story would only be possible in a "visual novella" style game without important choices. So any choices you make are really fake and the story will proceed over 1 linear path from beginning to end.
The more branches and alternative paths that you create on the way, the more difficult it will be to avoid plotholes or inconsistencies. Can't agree. Come back once you finish the game. Most narrative issues start becoming apparent up in act3. BG3 doesn't have many branching paths, and I can't think of issues that would arise as a direct result of it - maybe aside Larian dropping stories set up in earlier acts, possible to not have to work on playtrhough unique content. An example of what you mention would be Witcher2 - where CDPR bring a lot of small and big changes to character actions and events to make each playthrough work. I still think it is an issue, but those only become apparent once you complete the game multiple times.
|
|
|
|
|
|
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Jul 2023
|
For example let's start with a simple question; why was our party tadpoled? On the surface that seems like a simple question with a simple answer that barely needs going into. But then you learn more about the events leading up to your escape and you realize that it doesn't make any sense why any of the party were abducted. And how is it that the handful of co-abductees are nearly all closely associated/involved with some powerful entity? We can also add Gale's bomb thing and the fact that Karlach managed to sneak onboard. (But if she sneaked onboard then does she have a tadpole?). ==========
Having finished the creche/monastery I went to camp for a long rest then off to the Mtn Pass (did the Underdark last time). I entered the transition and found myself back at camp. No instructions as to why or what to do. I couldn't leave so I had another long rest which was broken by Voss turning up (never saw him last time). The Dream Visitor said not to trust him which completely threw me as I thought they were on the same side.
The Voss dialogue left me none the wiser. He knew there was someone inside the artefact but not who. So as far as I can make out there are two agents working against Vlaakith - Voss and Dream Visitor. A bit of a coincidence if that is correct.
More a bug than anything but I have had a journal entry telling me I missed Dammon in the SC lands or the inn but hopefully I can still find him in BG. The entry has been there since long before I steeped into the SC lands and now I have just arrived at the inn there is Dammon working away in his little corner.
|
|
|
|
|
|
journeyman
|
|
journeyman
Joined: Jul 2023
|
that's why I believe D:OS1 who simple didn't care to tell a coherent plot I think this quote is really all you need to know about the opinions in this thread. I didn't read through literally everything, but there's so much self-congratulatory cynicism here that I can no longer take any point made seriously. There were probably a handful of good points, but honestly gents, if you can do better: please go do so. We will all thank you if your cRPG turns out as brilliant as you envision it. See you in five years.
|
|
|
|
|
|
enthusiast
|
|
enthusiast
Joined: Sep 2023
|
that's why I believe D:OS1 who simple didn't care to tell a coherent plot I think this quote is really all you need to know about the opinions in this thread. I didn't read through literally everything, but there's so much self-congratulatory cynicism here that I can no longer take any point made seriously. There were probably a handful of good points, but honestly gents, if you can do better: please go do so. We will all thank you if your cRPG turns out as brilliant as you envision it. See you in five years. This is an utterly immature and totally unnecessary statement. It is well within people's rights to criticize a game, there is nothing "cynical" about it at all, and "plot" happens to be one of the weaker elements of BG3 (and of Larian games, as a pattern.) There is nobody saying that you can't enjoy this game for its other aspects. If you want things to be done better in the future, it's wort discussing to figure out exactly how games that disappoint you have failed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Mar 2020
|
There were probably a handful of good points, but honestly gents, if you can do better: please go do so. Ah, that tired way of dismissing any discussion without having to engage with it. "Ah, I think car I bought is having issues? Whaaat? Can you build a better one?" Which part of my commend you didn't like? That I liked D:OS1 the best? Or that I said it's plot was incoherent? The latter isn't even meant as a criticism, nor is a controvertial statement. Sven himself openly admitted that in D:OS1 story was an afterthought - and that's something they have been striving to improve ever since. And succesfully - each release they did was stronger narrative-wise, even though I still there is a fundamental conflict between Larian's idea of fun gameplay and narratives they try to tell. Still, the story has issues. And personally, I will take a game with little focus on story that is 100% fun, than a game with large focus of troubled story that mires my experience.
|
|
|
|
|
|
member
|
|
member
Joined: Oct 2020
|
I think the most obviously jarring thing about the narrative is how decidedly laid back the origin characters are about their imminent and painful deaths, to then be replaced by a brain eating monster which they could reasonably anticipate occurring within a matter of days. Other than Laezel, they show very little concern over this obviously horrific prospect. She is the only one with any urgency. Wyll in particular is ridiculous, with his priority being on hunting Karlach, when he has no idea how long this might take and the real possibility ceremorphosis will occur before he ever finds her.
I get that they didn't necessarily want all party interactions to essentially be "Shit, shit, shit, we are about to die" until the first dream sequence, but if so, they might have chosen another plot device.
Still, I think its important to recognise its a game, not a novel. The plot needs to be an excuse for interesting scenarios for gameplay and interesting mechanical progression. Inevitably, some compromises are going to be made in terms of narrative flow. This is a particular issue if you don't want to put the player on railroads and allow them the ability to explore, do side content and advance the game at their own pace. I am 99.99% sure that in EA the characters used to be far more worried about their imminent transformation before meeting Daisy. Astarion would talk about how his teeth were twisting in his gums and so on. Gale would make a deal with Raphael. They made significant change For example let's start with a simple question; why was our party tadpoled? Absolute needed a weapon against the Chosen. Oh, you mean in retail? Yeah, no idea.
|
|
|
|
|
|
addict
|
|
addict
Joined: Oct 2020
|
For me the story is pretty good until mid Act 3. It kind of falls apart after Orin as Gortash got all his content cut, and then the Emperor/Orpheus resolution is the nail on the coffin. Raphael and the Chosen are far more interesting villains than an Elder Brain, to be honest.
|
|
|
|
|
|
old hand
|
old hand
Joined: Oct 2020
|
I haven't finished the whole game yet (just finished chapter 2) so I didn't read all the posts in detail to avoid spoilers. I also think that, so far, there are some unexplainable inconsistencies in "the big picture" of the absolute. But I just wanted to propose that a completely coherent story would only be possible in a "visual novella" style game without important choices. So any choices you make are really fake and the story will proceed over 1 linear path from beginning to end.
The more branches and alternative paths that you create on the way, the more difficult it will be to avoid plotholes or inconsistencies.
Personally I'm willing to live with those storyholes to be able to walk different paths. Now of course, I 'm in my first PT, if it turns out that the different paths are illusionary and don't change much in reality (like eating lots of tadpoles and embracing the dream image, vs. rejecting her and all tadpoles) then that would be rather disappointing. I would disagree with this lightly, in the sense that I agree with you that by giving players control of the narrative, it makes it very likely that holes will be introduced into said narrative, but I think that's a question of narrative consistency. Narrative coherence - in my mind at least - is a different thing that's very much achievable. When I say that the narrative is incoherent, I mean that it's various different parts don't work together and results in a story that really doesn't make a lot of sense at several points. Plot holes are one thing, and I think those are acceptable if it means a better story. But the story should still have internal cohesion and those holes should not be present consistently throughout the game. That's unfortunate. I had hoped, the end of Chapter 3 would reveal all. I 'm not against misteries, suspense and puzzling events during a story, like...
Why are the NPC's level 1 while they have an impressive backstory. My interpretation... are all under control/punishment of some higher force . For Gale, Astarion and Wyll , I can find an explanation in my mind. For Shadowheart, I was hoping a good reveal will come in chapter 3, when she retrieves her memory so we know why she was chosen to get the Githyanki artefact and how she did it. I seem to understand from posts above that this remains a loose end. That would really be a disapointment were it the case.
Lae'zel staying with the party, especially after the meeting with Zorru, is a big inconsistence. She should have left the party at that point to find the creche. But when Gods are involved, there may also be an explanation why she felt the need to stay. Will we get this ?
I'm now at the beginning of chapter 3, I met the real protector in the prism and the emperor. What struck me, is that in EA, to choose Daisy, they told you to create your ideal partner. In the final version this was changed. I think the EA prompt is a better story explanation, as the mind flayer could read your mind and create your ideal in your dreams. It fits. It's an "Aha" moment, when revealed. But for some reason they removed this from the final version. That 's a loss for the new players IMO.
Just some ramblings from someone who is at the start of CH3 and is hoping to get mysteries solved.
|
|
|
|
|
|
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Oct 2020
|
I tend to agree. And while the game certainly has high replay value, all the Tad-X-Talks really get on my nerves. I really wish there was an actual cure somewhere, from which point forward you could just regular-talk to people.
Fear my wrath, for it is great indeed.
|
|
|
|
|
