Thank you so much, Salo, for this great Interview It's interesting and the three are so sympathetic.
A pity, that those thoughts and visions are not taken into account by (others? of) the Larian Team, when they produced the new kisses for the player's character's romance, regarding the player's character (suddenly portrayed as a sad and suffering non-consenting victim). Everything in this interview sounds so great and appropriate for an RPG...
Interviewer: "As I understand it, there's no sort of canonical like "true story" that is privileged above any other story..." Swen: "No." Interviewer: "...in Baldur's Gate 3. Like how do you as writers, as creatives, kind of keep yourself from attaching to a certain story? Or maybe you do, and you just have to kind of leave that to one side?" Adam Smith, writing Director: "For me, I think it's different for everyone probably, but for me as soon as it's released, it belongs to everybody else, it's theirs and they do what they will with it. And that includes the way they play. It includes the fanfiction. It includes the cosplay, includes the artwork, some of the artwork... (laugher) that's not canonical! (laugher) But It's that, it's really, you have to accept that the characters don't, they're not yours. They belong to the player. And fundamentally, like I said earlier, and I say this a lot, it's like a mantra for me, the main character of the game is the person playing the game, whether they're playing an origin or whether they're playing a "Tav", you know, custom character. They have to be the main character. So therefore that's the canonical story. Yeah." Swen: "We always aproach it as we are the Dungeon Masters, so the players are going to define everything, and we just have to anticipate, what all these players want to do, which is impossible, of course, but we try to do as much as we could. And so the process was very much when, and this was throughout all of Larian, I want to do this and I can't do this. So let's just add this so you can do it, because you're representing some part of the player population and they'll want to be able to do that." Interviewer: "And like a really good dungeon master, you can't be attached to a certain outcome or even a certain path." (*Swen, Adam Smith and lead writer Chrystal Ding shaking their heads*) Swen: "No, not at all." Adam Smith, writing Director: "They feel it straight away. If you try and push them, they know."
Oh yes, and how people feel it straight away.
Why forcing sad, painful, contempt feelings/faces on the player's character in their own romance kisses, when Adam Smith is saying: "The main character of the game is the person playing the game (...) They have to be the main character. So therefore that's the canonical story." ? How different the visions of Swen and the writing director and the execution of a "simple" romance kiss in a patch after release can be.
Thank you Zayir for writing down that part of the interview and sharing those excellent points regarding that inconsistency. I very much agree. I feel that there's a clear disconnect here between the message being communicated in this interview, and what is shown in those AA kiss scenes that were added in Patch 6. It is like night and day to me.
You, as the main character, are forced to look unhappy in this romance/situation/relationship, although you (the main character) made multiple conscious decisions throughout the game to be in this relationship. No matter what type of character we're roleplaying as, IF we decide to remain in the relationship, there is no way we should be forced to play a character who looks disgusted with their romantic partner (and not enjoying kissing him). We all chose this path for our own reasons, and we are not all roleplaying a character who is regretting their choices (out of the blue) or feeling miserable with AA. I basically feel as though we're being fed the sentiment that we will not be happy in this relationship going forward, even though that should be up to us.
Originally Posted by Metarra
It seems that Larian wants to discourage people from romancing AA. The problem is that AA is much more fleshed out than UA. There is so much more characterization with AA and more content in general with him, especially when romanced. Romancing UA feels undercooked when compared to AA. So that is one of the things that makes AA more appealing to me... his better fleshed out romance in act 3. Also UA kind of doesn't feel like Astarion. It feels like AA is who he's been the whole time, just with more confidence, like his voice actor said. It's like UA was an afterthought. Perhaps the botched AA kisses wouldn't feel so bad if the UA romance route was fleshed out more.... but I still think AA fans should get satisfying kisses, which means not forcing unhappy expression on peoples' faces.
I agree. Astarion has always had that bite/edge to him, and for me personally, I felt like his Ascended path is the one that feels more complete. He gets to lean more into his evil side without shame. He becomes what he always wanted to be like (but didn't feel strong enough to do before). With his UA path, to me it feels almost like he gives up and has to resign himself to his fate. I also got the feeling that more effort and time was put into the Ascended path. He gets more dialogue responses (like his multiple answers to "What are we, to you?") and certain other things that make him compelling, exciting, complex and fun to romance imo. It would have been nice for both UA and AA to get a similar treatment and attention to detail.
Originally Posted by KiraMira
Originally Posted by Metarra
It seems that Larian wants to discourage people from romancing AA. (...) Perhaps the botched AA kisses wouldn't feel so bad if the UA romance route was fleshed out more.... but I still think AA fans should get satisfying kisses, which means not forcing unhappy expression on peoples' faces.
We are all adults playing an RPG. I think if we where sitting around a table and playing this together it would be unacceptable to have someone interrupting a player everytime they went for a kiss with their romance describing pain, fear and anger on someone elses character. Why would someone do this? To me it sounds like someone trying to punish and make someone else leave the table. The unwanted "evil" players perhaps? I really can't stand a justice crusade when it is targeting real people for thinking differently, I think diversity and creativity should be welcomed, not hammered back into place.
This! Imagine if we were being told by the game master how we feel when we kiss our partner. We can be told what happens, but not how we feel or how we react to it. This would feel very mean-spirited and no one would want to put up with that at a table. Those kiss scenes seem presumptuous to me and just overall misguided.
It's interesting and the three are so sympathetic.
