Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - General Vincke & lead writers IGN Interview: a look at weak character writing in BG3

IGN interview with Vincke and lead writers

I was banned from Steam forums for posting the below 'reaction', and I still do not understand what is the offending piece. I’m keen to get to the bottom of it from the POV of others. The replies on Steam were also civil: no derailing, no bait, no anger.

I’ve changed some of the language to be more ‘neutral’, but there are limits before we veer into the realm of self-censorship and absurdity.

I’ve also added TLDRs to each section.

---

Topic: Lot of talk, little to to say

TLDR: Seems to be Vincke and Smith doing 98% of the talking, with zero-to-no input from the other lead writer.

Original Post:

Very long interview about the BG3 writing process.

What did I learn?

Zilch. But it is interesting that ‘Chrystal’ stays quiet for about 98% of it, and lets the two boys yabber away.

---

Topic: LGBT metaphors in BG3

TLDR: The Emperor’s romance scene is a metaphor for gay ‘otherness’, but is poorly handled by Larian, in that it arrives out of the blue and is tackily presented (has his top off from the start)

Original Post:

The interviewer admits to being gay, but only brings it up re: The Emperor, which I previously stated as a fantasy metaphor for gay ‘otherness’: ‘can you accept me, despite my octopus sideshow form?’

The ‘sideshow’ joke is obviously directed at the creature. There is nothing abnormal about gayness. I refer to the fact that he is ‘othered’ by his appearance, and appears male in tone, yet seeks a romantic connection with a MC – male in my case – who is neither attracted to males, nor can see anything non-traditionally feminine as physically appealing.

The problem with the metaphor is the Larian-delivery, in that it’s as cack-handed as it gets. No build up (it’s never suggested The Emperor is sexually repressed), then suddenly out of the blue he has his top off and is trying to ‘game’ you.

This is the issue with these writers. Romance isn’t what it is for the rest of us: strategic and subtle and occasionally a battle of attrition that can be dragged out for months, even years. For Larian, it’s bare flesh. Simples.

---

Topic: The complexity of real romance versus the shallowness of Larian romance

TLDR: Larian’s emphasis on physical characteristics cheapens the romance writing, and makes the companions seem sexually immature, unsubtle and uncomplicated.

Original Post:

Show me a straight girl who’ll immediately have sex with a ripped Adonis when he pulls his top off. They don’t exist. And I’ve had this conversation with two girls before: what if Colin Farrell walked into the room now and demanded they have sex with him. They said they’d reject the advance. Now what if Scarlett Johnson walked into the room and demanded I have sex with her?

You know the answer.

With straights, one is literally from Venus and the other from Mars: alien species. For gays, both are from the same planet.

My own experience with gay men hitting on me is that they’re very forward about the physical side of it: body parts will be grabbed, and the ‘flirting’ is openly directed at eroticising physical traits perceived to be ‘attractive’.

Admittedly, I’m no expert – but this has been my experience, and my point is that I would not get away with this form of flirtation with a woman. It would have ruinous consequences, and at a minimum she would be completely repelled.

---

Topic: Playersexual toggle that creates pre-defined sexualities

TLDR: I advocate an on/off switch for playersexual. Off locks characters to one sexual orientation: either straight or gay. This is to restore narrative integrity to the characters, so that their biggest plot points are driven by their pre-defined orientation, as they are for all humans in reality.

Original Post:

Playersexual, to me, warps any fictional authenticity of the characters. Just think how much of your life’s narrative revolves around finding ‘the one’, no matter your intelligence. This in turn writes the biggest dramas you experience – the conflicts, the risks, the thrills and the spills – because yeah, it can get bloody. I’ve been there with a girl whose ‘secret bf’ banged on the window during a ‘compromising moment’!!

And the scramble to recover, heart slamming against chest, then – yes – the big showdown. Icily cordial, as it happens. I even shook his hand. ‘How’s it going mate? Well, anyway, last tram home is in 15min, would you believe.’

People will cheat because of their sexual orientation. They will avoid certain people because of it. They will be careful with certain people because of it.

It’s the primary driver of the biggest plots in every human story you can think of. The writers must be able to return to pre-defined sexualities, and write drama specific to those stories, otherwise the fiction is plastic and unnatural and mere wish fulfillment.

---

Conclusion

I hope the big writerly discussion on IGN is a sign that the ‘big thing’ they’re working on for BG3 is narrative-related, and goes at least some ways towards giving everyone a balanced ‘take’, tailored to their sexuality and playstyle.

Meaning the playersexual option for those who want this. But the ‘playersexual off’ for those who want to experience the dramas of the characters as fuelled by their specific, locked sexual orientations.

Huh.... The far too awkward delivery of the Emperor-sex-scene aside...


I don't see the point of it being gay *at all*. What's all that about? The whole thing about being either straight or gay - is that you're sexually attracted to specific things. I can see how you can *love* someone/something alien or whatever, I can even see that you're attracted to it. But accepting something physically *even though* you don't want to.... Is just as forced as I, the straight white old-fashioned non-woke dude perceived it. Never mind the fact that the character in question is a mind-controlling villain. I thought the wokes were all about setting rules around consent.

Wait till you're over 35 and go unto the internet. All the recent divorcees want nothing but that. Tell them you like cats and remember your zodiac sign, it's enough.
Also, I mean, 50 Shades? There is a reason that is popular. It's about a handsome, creepy stalker dude with a domination fetish. That's Astarion. It's also why I, from the opposite demographic will typically stake the guy. Until I learned about the potion. He can stay in camp, suck a drow, get immediately murdered after and never raised again.

Yes, and it makes everything particularly awkward, too. Everyone drooling over Tav is *terrible*

Don't follow.


Even the gay interviewer copped the metaphor mate. The exact quote from the person is:

The Emperor is a fascinating character. As a queer person, it really resonated with me when he said, "I felt uncomfortable presenting my authentic self to you because I didn't think that you would accept me."

IMO, it is very obvious. Gays are considered ‘alien’ to straights, and The Emperor is a literal alien who wants to be ‘accepted’ and tries to sexually proposition you. I don’t believe a metaphor could in fact be any more on the nose.


Not my experience, and I’m 39, very built and all the attention I get from how I physically look is from gay men.

Women require the usual strategies of ‘making an effort’, chitchat, dates etc. Or at least they did when I was single.



That’s fantasy. Are you saying the women you’ve ever met don’t prefer fantasising over actual acting on the fantasy? They rarely if ever act on it.

Critical takeaway here is that women behave very differently to men in their flirtations, and their self-restraint around physically attractive men. Both single gay men and single straight men mostly have zero self-restraint around those they find attractive.


We seem to agree on one thing then.

It's almost impossible to follow what you're saying with how you've organized your thoughts. Give us some intro on what your post is about and what you'll be arguing.

Why do you have 4 different topic sections but start out mentioning Steam forums bans? Original post? Original post where? Who are you? Do we know you or something that we'd have prior knowledge of these posts?

Yeah, I get that, but what does that mean? He invites you to sex. So, do I 'accept' him by banging him? So, I have to act gay to accept gay?




Yes, it's the guys that hunt. You have to go after the girls, they're not coming for you. Guys hunt girls, guys hunt guys. Second.... Please don't tell me you go *out* looking for a date. Those days are long gone, man.


Yeah, hence; "talk about cats and zodiac signs" - But don't wait too long and tell them what you want to do with them, or you're wasting everyone's time.


No, not really. Ever heard of the 'nice guys finish last' thing? It's a real thing. Women that keep ending up with abusive partners? It's a real thing. Because it's attractive. I don't like it anymore than you do, but it's reality.


Party at my house. Bring dip.

More info required. Where's it confusing? There's a TLDR for each 'section' if you don't want to read the 'real' material. I have no inclination as to how to make this more 'organised'.


Did that already pal. Just ctrl+f on 'TLDR' and you can read the synopsis of all my points in under 15 seconds.


They're all the same topic mate. Think of them as chapters in that single topic, and it might be clearer. Only my intro mentions Steam bans - I'm looking for feedback as to how what I wrote is 'ban-worthy', considering I view it as neutral opinion that takes no sides.


Under each label highlighted like so: Original Post.


I'm EbenezerSlack, as the username states, here and on Steam. Unless you visit Steam and read my posts there, then no you do not know me.

There is no requirement to have prior knowledge of anything, as I've quoted all of the material over which I was banned from Steam: again, you can read it under the Original Post labels.

OP, I feel like all of the stuff about gay men trying to grab you and hitting on you, reinforcing the false stereotype that gay men are sexually promiscuous, is sullying any other potentially valid points that you have. You may just want to take that stuff out of there?

I think that IS the point, but it's hard to tell.

Seems to be what the writers are aiming for. You ‘accept’ the otherness of gayness – as a straight – by ‘looking passed’ The Emperor’s octopus freak-show appearance. Gays are not ‘freak-shows’, but they are men. Had many conversations with friends re: this – in other words, straight men view other men as they view themselves: simply repellent.

You should know what I’m talking about. How many times have I heard ‘how do women even go through with this (straight sex)’?



Exactly, so you just confirmed what I stated: women are from Venus, men are from Mars.



Did they ever exist? If we’re to nitpick, I was referring to Tinder and co. for the ‘dates’.


Exactly! These are the laws of the jungle! So you’re again backing up my statement that women are from Venus, men are from Mars.


Correct, but that has nothing do with the point I was making… Which is that women have unique self-restraint versus men around what they consider ‘attractive’. It’s virtually unheard of that women are ‘horndogs’, but men are the complete opposite.



Party at my house skip. The lads were egging me on to buy a proper table for the new gaff I bought, poker chips and deck of cards… I caved and spent all my Dec wages on the whole lot. You’re very welcome! I couldn’t afford chairs, but the lads are apparently sorting something out...

The above dude rodeolifant clarified it very well – all men are ‘sexually promiscuous’. Doesn’t matter whether gay or straight, because it’s programmed into the gender of the animal to ‘hunt’.

So gay men and straight men are equivalent here.

What I pointed out is that straight women are not receptive to ‘sexual promiscuity’ – they’re repelled by it.

But gay men are in a unique position: both are men. As in, they don’t have to deal with this ‘safety switch’ that nature programmed into women. They both equally think like hunters.

My experience is just that: I’m stating what I’ve experienced. Have any gay men tried to ‘proposition’ me in the way I ‘proposition’ women?

No.

I never stated this as some kind of ‘gay anomaly’, or 'wrongness'. The fact is gay men are used to less work when it comes to same-sex partners. That, IMO, bleeds into their flirtations with straight men that they find attractive: as in, they’re used to receptive men ‘vibbing’ with the directness.

If I could have the same experience with straight women, my sexual partner list would be in the 1000s. But straight women are simply repelled by the directness I’m talking about.

Yes, well.

This was fun. I think.

One can only hope...

No, not all men are sexually promiscuous. There are asexual men and demisexual men. I have absolutely no idea what you’re getting at. Saying that men are predators by nature? Like, what? Also part of the point of the game is that queerness isn’t “otherness” within the game. It’s like the water you swim in. Like, really. As a queer woman, I’m flabbergasted by this post. The blanket statements about men and gay men are just like, stereotypical and weird. I think we’re coming from very different places in life.

The other guy agreed with me that men are ‘predators’ (nothing wrong with it).

You admitted you’re a woman, so IMO you don’t have experience as to how men think.

Asexual men are very rare.

Anyways, most men are ‘predatory’. There is no problem with this, because nature is a thing and that’s how it made us: do everything you can to procreate.

The addition of the penis was quite a genius move by nature. Once it’s feeling ‘plucky’, it doesn’t matter how smart it’s owner is…

You said you’re a woman. I said I’m a man. Of course you’ll have a different experience with gay men, because they’re not interested in you.

They are very, very, very forward me – nonstop forward.

Do I care?

Yeah, it’s tedious.

Do I hate them?

The ones who wouldn’t stop, yeah. The ones who did stop – they’re cool with me.

Don’t care if someone’s gay, don’t care if a gay man ‘hits’ on me – but I do care if I have a stalker who’s obsessed.

Eh.. I never said predators. I said 'hunting' but... I *really* don't mean predators. I mean, they're out there for certain, but that's not baseline.

So, on a side note.... What exactly was the point of this topic?

Threads discussing the inclusion of lgbt content in the game typically get locked around here from what I've seen. Well, it's mostly threads that question the realism of that content--suggesting that it's agenda driven--or bring up the word "woke."

While I don't normally agree with locking those threads, a part of me does question the direction of this thread.

A lot of topics presented themselves in the initial thread. It might be easier to focus on one topic at a time. For instance, a thread simply addressing this: is the Emperor meant to represent gayness?

--I have a hard time understanding why that would be so with so many gay relationships throughout the game. If anything, the game seeks to normalize being gay in the setting as a whole. There's easily more gay couples than straight couples seen in the campaign.

--So maybe the Emperor represents *anyone* who feels like an outsider looking in. Seeking companionship while feeling undeniably different.

--But then again, the Emperor is arrogant, if not outright narcissistic. This is a manipulative creature, a not-quite-hero, not-quite-villain. Hardly the lonely soul looking for connection. It has masterminded a plot to defeat the machinations of the dead three.

--In short, I don't accept the Emperor as symbolic of what it is to be gay.

Not sure I'm following the discussion here, but about the interview: It's a bit disappointing that the writers think that the Emperor/Orpheus ending is just fine, while it simply felt unfinished, like they were running out of time or something. No way I thought this could have been intentional. They even highlight how much attention and time they spent on that ending.


I'm not very optimistic about the DE anymore.

Thanks for your input. Here's the quote again from an actual gay person who thinks The Emperor is symbolic of gayness, and then my own thoughts:

---

Even the gay interviewer copped the metaphor mate. The exact quote from the person is:

The Emperor is a fascinating character. As a queer person, it really resonated with me when he said, "I felt uncomfortable presenting my authentic self to you because I didn't think that you would accept me."

IMO, it is very obvious. Gays are considered ‘alien’ to straights, and The Emperor is a literal alien who wants to be ‘accepted’ and tries to sexually proposition you. I don’t believe a metaphor could in fact be any more on the nose.

---

There is no question The Emperor is gay. If anything, the issue is that it's too obvious and the bad writing doesn't lead up to it in a natural way.


IMO, the whole concept of an 'alien' being closet gay is kinda genius and could've been a brilliant narrative thread, without question.

Squandered though, because Larian's writers never fail to disappoint. I wanted David Chase. I wanted David Simmons. Yeah, I wanted that - because why not? Why can't we have genius with this fantasy stuff?

Instead we got what we got.

It is the worst written story I've endured in many, many years.

Man, I miss the golden era of BG1 and BG2. It was like a good book: authentic and flawed and strange and incredible. I absolutely loved those games, and this is from someone who never played DnD or even knew what it was about.

They had the magic.

BG3 just has the budget.

My bad. I didn't know you quoted the one gay person who speaks for all gay folks. Maybe it will be more clear if you copy/paste the same thing again?

Or maybe I could just go back and read it again. Hold on, one minute. Wait, hmm, that's weird. I read it *again* and my opinion is still the same. Crazy. It's almost like I don't agree with you and said as much in a discussion thread. I'm afraid I'm gonna need you to copy/paste the same thing over again. We might just have to keep doing this until something changes. Thanks.

Again:

IMO, it is very obvious. Gays are considered ‘alien’ to straights, and The Emperor is a literal alien who wants to be ‘accepted’ and tries to sexually proposition you. I don’t believe a metaphor could in fact be any more on the nose.

Over to you to contradict it. If you're so convinced it's incorrect, it must be easy to disprove it, articulately, specifically, and without fluff.

But you just keep saying 'in my opinion I'm right'.

It doesn't convince me dude. I'd be very surprised if it convinces anyone else, because you haven't actually expanded upon why you think my reasoning doesn't add up.

I've a funny feeling you're just disagreeing to be disagreeable, rather than having any thoughtful couter-opinion - but yo, prove me wrong.