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

I was going to drop in to note that, I think most people have by this point developed a fair understanding of how and why the OP got themselves banned from the steam forums, which was the pretence question of the thread... but it seems they've successfully gotten themselves banned... Sooo... I guess that answers that?

I was also in the process of writing up an extensive response and discussion post relating to their pretty icky statements, so it's probably a good thing that the mods got in ahead of me, because I really shouldn't let myself get caught up in this kind of thing ^.^ I would have been very, er, opinionated.

*scraps seven pages of quote-response analysis*

On topic (kinda), the interview was interesting, but it really just... it's hard to describe properly how awful their approach to story and writing seems, given the way they talk and answer questions here. It's like they're proud of their lazy writing, sloppy fragments and incomplete/unfinished arcs... And they spend so many points being defensive about things, rather than talking about sore points; when questioned about a bit that many people didn't like or didn't find satisfying ,the first reaction from the interviewees is to explain why they "should" like it, 'because it's actually cool like that'... I dunno, the whole interview just ended up feeling pretty icky and disappointing to me.

Is it possible that the illithids are meant to be representative of gingers? Just spitballing.

Yes, especially the takes on Gale and Wyll are awful and that the interviewer named as their favourite Wyll scene the Mizora sex scene - sorry, but that is just stupid. The man might not have as much content as others, but he has some good scenes without Maryzora (as we named her in the Wyll trhead, because she is a Mary Sue - can't be harmed and has massive plot armor).

And yeah, good riddance of OP.

They seemed very dismissive of their own characters.

I suppose all they can do now is pretend it's fine the way it is. At least they admitted that the ending was rushed.

I overall enjoyed the interview. Some worthwhile info - like that Emperor's was plan on a long.

I do agree that it feels a bit like they are deflecting the criticism. It's seems like they are explaining what they were going for - however, I don't think it is an issue of players misinterpreting or "not getting" what Larian has done. Being stuck between "Lawyer and an Accountant" might be an interesting concept, but the execution isn't great.

Well, no, that's is precisely the issue I have with evil path that I have been mentioning since EA. Whenever you are benevilent, selfless or selfish good path is the one to go. I am yet to explore it beyond act1, but it very much seems to be alternative path for alternative paths sake - and the result is forgoing content is certainly a choice, just not a very compelling one. Larian's argument is that to create path equal to good path, they would have to create the same experience - but that is not true. There are more and less work intensive ways of achieving reactivity to actions (from completely original new content like Witcher2 to more systemic or sporadic reactions of Tim Cain or Obsidian). Making evil path unique is good, making it lesser - not so much, though at least in that regard BG3 stays true to its roots .

I saw the buildup. Obviously you missed it, but this did not come out of the blue. Before that the emperor literally gave you the option to kill them if you did not trust them. That’s a depth of trust that is hard to match — and one that hints at possible attraction (though that’s not the only possible explanation).

If you never experienced a level of trust sufficient that you would bare your throat to someone who almost lost sanity because you knew they would not hurt you even in that state, then you may not be able to emphasize with that. But this experience was real and as such the emperors approach felt pretty plausible (and foreshadowed) to me.

...However, if you choose to kill him right there and then, it turns out you're stabbing an illusion. Also, the Emperor completely forgets about that incident straight away, and will proposition you regardless.

You know I had a thought on this and really changed how I look at it now. Emperor used sex purely as a manipulation tool. The reason I say that is sexuality in nature exists as a way for procreation. Illithid do not procreate in traditional methods that would require sexuality. In fact, Illithis are asexual, with no gender at all in their race. So the concept of Emperor finding anyone sexually attractive is BS.

The more I deep dive Emperor the more convinced I become that allowing him access to the stones or the crown would have meant our death outright.

This argument doesn't hold in a fantasy setting where some species procreate differently. Laezel cannot reproduce at all and yet she can be romanced, and I don't think she manipulates the protagonist. Imo the emperor's sex scene is added just for shock value, same as with Halsin's bear scene.

And while I agree the emperor is trying to manipulate the player, it is a pointless manipulation because consuming the tadpoles like he wants does not impact the final choices in the story. It is just a powergaming mechanics to give additional powers.

Tbh, one of the reasons I dislike this character so much is because he seems so pointless compared to Daisy.

Except that this never became part of *my* playthrough, because I did not ?

I agree that it would be nice if there were a different case for the Illithid romance if you decided to stab them.

Though the Emperor just using sex as manipulation tool would be fitting, too. After all it is clearly stated before the encounter that you can only trust an Illithid when your goals are perfectly aligned, so you are only interesting when you decide to turn Illithid yourself and align your goals. Though this information is unreliable as all information in the game. Later they clearly state that illusions are its nature.

Except that the Emperor might actually be a case of a rogue Illithid who recovered some bonds — emotional or otherwise. There are cases of rogue Illithid in D&D lore: https://forgottenrealms.fandom.com/wiki/Mind_flayer#Notable_Mind_Flayers

Daisy, and... the fact that he's called THE EMPEROR.

I've said this a hundred times already, and I apologize for being a broken record here...

He should have been the Emperor of the *Actual* remaining Illithid Empire.
If that were the [logical] case, then he wasn't 'recruiting' you for *his* personal survival, he's doing it for the survival of all Illithid. Him going to defend the Elder Brain if you choose Orpheus suddenly makes sense, too.

Now the stakes rise, and the final decision is a lot harder to make.

You can free the Elder Brain for the Emperor, and give the Illithid a fighting chance - at the risk of total planar domination.
You can go the Orpheus route, but you'll be condemning a whole race to death, basically committing genocide. You can ponder whether that is justified or not.

And then there is still the question of what to do with the Crown.

You see, it makes perfect sense. In that scenario, you get to see the Emperor perhaps in a better light, and think that maybe not all Illithid are as bad as we think. Or maybe you've just been led to believe that. Then again, there is also Omeluum.

That would not improve the plot, imo. As a race, illithids are parasites that need to destroy the host (body & soul) in order to procreate. The genocide argument doesn't hold when the existence of a race is based on the necessity of complete destruction of others.

Omellum seems to be the only exception, because unlike the emperor, he shows no interest in turning your character (and therefore 'procreating') and actively works to find a solution to counter his nature (requiring brains to survive).

I just don't think the plot can be fixed, i

Well, I *agree* with you, but that's the point. You'd have to consider that. Because, when it comes down to to, a cat will eat mice until there are no more mice. Man will murder chickens until the last chicken.

No, I'd not consider it personally. I'd kill the emperor same as I do now, the only difference is the story would be even more over the top than it is now. Which is one of the reason why I find the writing weak.

They keep rising the stakes throughout the game and it only makes it worse. First it is only about survival, then about saving the sword coast, then preventing the grand design, and then world domination because the big bad evil has become somehow even a bigger bad evil. It's already too much.

I was not surprised about what they said about Gale, in a way it does make sense (story arc wise) and his explosion ending does have his heroic cut scene. But since I have discussed Karlach matters a lot recently, the interview puts into perspective why the two terminal condition/ suicide plots are treated so very differently. In the end you are supposed to feel sorry for Karlach, but you are supposed to blow up Gale without feeling too bad about it. Karlach gets a ton of little moments and one big scene that are supposed to make you really feel for her, while Gale gets not really much in form of sympathy. In the end when Karlach has her scene, everyone is shown to be really distraught on her behalf and you get to comfort her. When Gale blows up, he comforts the player before the moment and his explosion is commented on with hardly more than a shrug by the companions.

So you are supposed to feel sorry for the cute innocent girl but the depressed guy is expendable? Nice messenging there.

Larian...does not think about messaging. Astarion's docks scene vs Karlach's is another example.

Then there's also the fact that they used Astarion in the bear video. The character with that backstory. The guy who tells you in game that he doesn't want to be seen as a sex object.

They'd already done the OnlyFangs thing, which I'd argue is worse.

That has been obvious from the start. E.g. Astarion has a scene with Gandrel early on, where his racist comment - which are very similar to anti-Romani racism - went without a reaction from the player, and I think only after player feedback they added one line where you can call him out on that. They still kept the violent outcome.

I am not sure what the message behind that is supposed be.

It sure didn't age well.


That's not a message, just an insight into his past and how resentful he is at that point.

Yeah, I recently saw a video about why mindflayer Tav thinks Astarion's brain might be tasty at the epilogue that also does not take into account that there's maybe more to him than what your first impression of him is.


Also that recent post with Orin's outfit ...