Dank Crypt(Overgrown Ruins) vs. Fort Joy Prison

Ok, this is not another DOS2 = BG3 thread in premise. However, I was recently looking at some DOS2 footage that came across my recommended and noticed the similarities between the two.

Once I saw it, I could not un-see it. Does anyone else notice it? It looks like a very similar layout.

Can't deny Larian has its mark. Waking up on a beach as the start of act 1 is a clichÃ© at this point so it wouldn't surprise me those games share more similarities.

Unless I'm misremembering the start of DOS1, they've only done that opening one other time. Sure, using it back to back might be considered less than creative (I have no issue with it personally) but calling it a cliche is going a bit far.

They used the beach in Dos1 too. So three times in a row, not just back to back. But to be fair, at least your boat didn't sink or crash then.

I guess I should have said I'm talking about the map tiles and layout. It looks so similar.

There are a lot of similarities between the titles.

The tadpole in your head theme is basically the exact same thing as the collars in D:OS2 as well.

Originally Posted by Lake Plisko

There are a lot of similarities between the titles.

The tadpole in your head theme is basically the exact same thing as the collars in D:OS2 as well.

Grove is very similar to the Sanctuary of Amadia .......we could go on and on. Expect more of the same in the other chapters. Using the divinity engine wasn't their only shortcut.

Serious question:
Cant that be caused by the fact that same group of artists were working on both?
I mean ... im no artist myself, i cant really draw anything more complex than a stickman ... but seems logical to me that if someone have his style and it fits him, he will be using it ... and therefore there will be similarities in his work.

In other words ... is there really some huge graphical difference between The Simpsons, Futurama, or Disenchantment? Bcs they look quite simmilar to me.

Originally Posted by Lake Plisko

There are a lot of similarities between the titles.

The tadpole in your head theme is basically the exact same thing as the collars in D:OS2 as well.

It thought this as well, but then realized it's actually the opposite, isn't it?

The tadpole gives you powers that are above and beyond your natural ability. You have to venture forth to find a way to get rid of it before it kills you.

The collars suppress your natural abilities. You have to get rid of the collars before you can escape the island and venture forth on your journey.

So, yes and no...

Originally Posted by iBowfish

Quote

The tadpole in your head theme is basically the exact same thing as the collars in D:OS2 as well.

It thought this as well, but then realized it's actually the opposite, isn't it?

Tadpole = source.

BG3 is build using D:OS2 framework, that much should be clear by now. I am curious how far it will go.

End of act one = revealing the true nature of source/tadpole and killing of spare companions.

act 2 = semi open enviroment with/in a big city as we pursue Macguffins in order to fulfill our tadpole/source related destiny.

act 2 ending = fake finale, with a showdown against killed off companions and an unexpected low point of our characters journey

act 3 - real finale wrapping up companions story archs and facing their personal antagonists, and final dungeon of the game, with possible plot twist antagonist from previous titles (it's been resurected Bhaal all along!).

Originally Posted by Wormerine

Originally Posted by iBowfish

Quote

The tadpole in your head theme is basically the exact same thing as the collars in D:OS2 as well.

It thought this as well, but then realized it's actually the opposite, isn't it?

Tadpole = source.

BG3 is build using D:OS2 framework, that much should be clear by now. I am curious how far it will go.

End of act one = revealing the true nature of source/tadpole and killing of spare companions.

act 2 = semi open enviroment with/in a big city as we pursue Macguffins in order to fulfill our tadpole/source related destiny.

act 2 ending = fake finale, with a showdown against killed off companions and an unexpected low point of our characters journey

act 3 - real finale wrapping up companions story archs and facing their personal antagonists, and final dungeon of the game, with possible plot twist antagonist from previous titles (it's been resurected Bhaal all along!).

Oh no, you are right. Especially about Bhaal. It's going to be so cringeworthy when when we defeat the lord of murder with a level 10-13 party with the help of our Source
uhm tadpole-magic. Gosh darnit, i'm getting less and less excited to play the full game.

Genuine question. As both games share the same engine. Could it be possible to make mods to play the D:OE and D:OE2 using BG3 classes and monsters?

Originally Posted by Lekinf

Genuine question. As both games share the same engine. Could it be possible to make mods to play the D:OE and D:OE2 using BG3 classes and monsters?

Nope. Dos1 isn't compatible with Dos2 either, and they are far closer in terms of differences in engine (It's not technically the same engine, as it's just an in-house engine that tools developers iterate on and chance as the project requires. It's not a 1:1 "same engine", sadly. The model meshes and textures from Dos2 would look terrible in BG3 too.

There are more technical reasons why it doesn't work like that, but no real good way of simplifying it in a concise fashion. Basically not a chance, not in a long shot.

Originally Posted by Wormerine

Originally Posted by iBowfish

Quote

The tadpole in your head theme is basically the exact same thing as the collars in D:OS2 as well.

It thought this as well, but then realized it's actually the opposite, isn't it?

Tadpole = source.

BG3 is build using D:OS2 framework, that much should be clear by now. I am curious how far it will go.

End of act one = revealing the true nature of source/tadpole and killing of spare companions.

act 2 = semi open enviroment with/in a big city as we pursue Macguffins in order to fulfill our tadpole/source related destiny.

act 2 ending = fake finale, with a showdown against killed off companions and an unexpected low point of our characters journey

act 3 - real finale wrapping up companions story archs and facing their personal antagonists, and final dungeon of the game, with possible plot twist antagonist from previous titles (it's been resurected Bhaal all along!).

Really hope they don't go down the deicide route with BG III like DOS2 did. All the gods getting involved with Origins characters/the main plot I wouldn't put it beyond the realm of possibility.

We begin having been taken onto a ship against our will,
We break out amidst unexpected confusion, and get our bearings.
Oh no, the ship is under attack!
We play witness to several entities far more powerful than us flexing their powers as we try to escape.
During the escape we are thrown clear of the foundering ship.
We are saved from certain death by some other powerful force deus-ex-machina preserving us.
We wake up on a beach and, one by one have the option of re-introducing to our companions, who were also on the ship and who also miraculously survived.
Of note, the rogue with a tortured past of slavery greets us by putting a knife to our throat... classy.
There's also a trained soldier who swears loyalty to their queen first and foremost, and won't her a bad thing about her,
And a mage with a dry and snarky wit but a somewhat superior way of talking,
And a woman who keeps her secrets, but has a mysterious connection to some other power, not like the one we all share,
And one who speaks incredibly highly of himself and puts on airs about his greatness - his current situation is largely a result of consorting with fiends.
Our companions and us all have the same 'othering' special power source in common, and will be reviled and hunted for it.
We soon discover that, indeed, there is a powerful organisation hunting us - and us specifically, it seems.
Meanwhile, other powerful entities speak to us in our dreams offering us power and/or solutions, if we do as they want.

.... Aaaand that's the intro to D:0S2. Want to hear the salient intro beats to BG3?

Wow very sobering when I read through the comments like this. So the accusation BG 3 is just a DOS 2 clone hardens. I never played the DOS series (never was a fan of it) and I don't even need to now, because if I ever played BG 3, I played DOS 2 anyway.

However, I do wonder, if BG 3 copies so much of DOS 2, why they take so long to finally finish....

Originally Posted by Niara

We begin having been taken onto a ship against our will,

.... Aaaand that's the intro to D:0S2. Want to hear the salient intro beats to BG3?

(Quote snipped for brevity.)

Iâ€™m actually quite taken aback reading this list. I guess Larian really does have a type ðŸ˜‚

Originally Posted by Lotus Noctus

Wow very sobering when I read through the comments like this. So the accusation BG 3 is just a DOS 2 clone hardens. I never played the DOS series (never was a fan of it) and I don't even need to now, because if I ever played BG 3, I played DOS 2 anyway.

However, I do wonder, if BG 3 copies so much of DOS 2, why they take so long to finally finish....

Clone is definitely not a word I would use - there are too many diferences on design, technical, and tone level to make them seperate IP, but yeah, I think it is closer to D:OS2 then BG1&2, and that's where I think a lot of disappointment comes from.

Even if Larian bases a lot of BG3 on D:OS2 it is not a copy-paste job. Perhaps they saved some time on finding new voice and fun, but they are still building a game with more of everything, so the dev time is understandably longer. Also D:OS2 felt rather unfinished in its later staged, so lets keep fingers crossed that BG3 will avoid that fate.

To be fair, if I was Larian I would converge more to the critically acclaimed modern CRPG I developed some years ago rather than to a 22 y/o game with a game play I haven't attempted yet. Blame WotC for giving the rights to them rather than anyone else I guess.

Originally Posted by snowram

Blame WotC for giving the rights to them rather than anyone else I guess.

I do. They were not the correct people for this job.

My own thoughts on some of the comments.

Tadpole = Source collar.
It's a no from me: The collar was removed pretty early on in the game. The tadpole thing will be there for the duration of the entire game, or until the near end.

Bhaal making an appearance and it being him all along?
Again, nope: I have maintained all along that the absolute is an elder brain. It makes the most sense.

Killed off companions making a return.
Im not sure how that would work given what I feel the plot is.

I for one cant help the feeling that if you will be snaping out details and replace things with pronouns ... sooner or later you find out that all games are more or less the same.

We begin having been captured, now we are traveling on a *cart*.
When we arive to the camp, its under attack!
We use that unexpected confusion to break free and get our bearings.
We play witness to several entities far more powerful than us flexing their powers as we try to escape.
During the escape we are thrown several times against game BBEG, that should have killed us, but we are allways saved by miraclous coincidence.

This is start of Skyrim.
Is that somehow hugely different?

Yes, Rag, it is.

Oh really ...
How?

The atmosphere, tone, setting and set-up are all entirely different... and you know this, and are being facetious.

I could split hairs and say 'a cart is not a ship' - in order to make that 'the same' you'd have to reduce the descriptor to an incredibly generic term, to the point of the statement having no meaning; this is not true of the example you're holding it up against, whihc are both set upon ,and use as their introductory setting, a literal ship - one is an astral ship, but ships they both very much are, in every way that matters for the plot element.

I could split hairs and say that we do not stay on the cart, and the rest happens in a different location, unlike the example you're holding it up against, for which the ship is the entire setting for the introductory sequence.

I could split hairs and say 'arrive at a camp' is not at all the same as 'break free on a ship'

I could point out that your last example is entirely different to the thing you are holding it up against, and is by your own descriptive words not even remotely the same thing at all...

I don't really need to do any of that, because you already know this, and if I try, you will just continue to be flippant and pedantic for the sake of being so, without really engaging with the topic in a meaningful way.... and I know that you are capable of being far better than that, Ragnarok, so it would serve neither of us to feed that aspect of your behaviour.

Rather than doing that, I'd recommend you address yourself to the wealth of individual elements that pair one-to-one between these two games opening introductions and first acts; they are numerous, specific and sufficiently detailed to be visible to many players as directly recycled elements. Please do share your thoughts and feelings about those.

Originally Posted by Wormerine

Originally Posted by Lotus Noctus

Wow very sobering when I read through the comments like this. So the accusation BG 3 is just a DOS 2 clone hardens. I never played the DOS series (never was a fan of it) and I don't even need to now, because if I ever played BG 3, I played DOS 2 anyway.

However, I do wonder, if BG 3 copies so much of DOS 2, why they take so long to finally finish....

Clone is definitely not a word I would use - there are too many diferences on design, technical, and tone level to make them seperate IP, but yeah, I think it is closer to D:OS2 then BG1&2, and that's where I think a lot of disappointment comes from.

Even if Larian bases a lot of BG3 on D:OS2 it is not a copy-paste job. Perhaps they saved some time on finding new voice and fun, but they are still building a game with more of everything, so the dev time is understandably longer. Also D:OS2 felt rather unfinished in its later staged, so lets keep fingers crossed that BG3 will avoid that fate.

Yes, that's right, I simply based the accusation of cloning on the critical voices from the Internet and their paraphrases based on their own gaming experience with DOS 2 & BG 3. So I also hope fervently that your, in the last sentence of you, described game experience does not come true and I cross my fingers of course for all of us.

Originally Posted by 0Muttley0

Bhaal making an appearance and it being him all along?
Again, nope: I have maintained all along that the absolute is an elder brain. It makes the most sense.

This is the first time I've heard of it, probably because I don't read any of the megathreads here, but I really like this theory.

Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD

I for one cant help the feeling that if you will be snaping out details and replace things with pronouns ... sooner or later you find out that all games are more or less the same.

We begin having been captured, now we are traveling on a *cart*.
When we arive to the camp, its under attack!
We use that unexpected confusion to break free and get our bearings.
We play witness to several entities far more powerful than us flexing their powers as we try to escape.
During the escape we are thrown several times against game BBEG, that should have killed us, but we are allways saved by miraclous coincidence.

This is start of Skyrim.
Is that somehow hugely different?

Hah Rag that's kinda true.

Gothic & TESO came instantly to my mind.

Originally Posted by Niara

The atmosphere, tone, setting and set-up are all entirely different... and you know this

Wanna know what else i know?
I know that i didnt talk about any of that ...

So unless your argument is supposed to be "difference between this two things is that something entirely else is different" ... i have no idea what else were you trying to say. :-/

That's okay Rag... I won't hold it against you, I know the language barrier gets in the way sometimes.

We're discussing how there are many mostly identical elements between one game opening d the other; the contention being that there is so much about them that is the same, that it becomes an almost shocking and very tacky-looking copy of one to the other, in a very uninspired way.

You brought up a different game and listed some only-vaguely-similar elements to some of the elements listed, and asked if it was any different.

I answered that it was, indeed, a very different comparison, because the elements you listed were only passingly similar, and in some cases not at all similar, and only lined up some of the listed details, while the initial comparison was of a list of very nearly identical elements all presented together, in the same way, at the same time, and with the same overall atmosphere and tone, which your example does not share.

Are we on the same page now?

Yeah i gues so:
You feel like your example is superb, and mine was not even close ...

To me they are simmilar enough.

//Edit:
After some thoughts ...
I would even go so far to calmly claim that "wooden cart dragged by horses" and "regular sailing ship" are closer to each other than either is to "alien biomechanical vessel capable of transdimensional traveling".

Â¯\_(ãƒ„)_/Â¯

Originally Posted by Wormerine

Clone is definitely not a word I would use - there are too many diferences on design, technical, and tone level to make them seperate IP, but yeah, I think it is closer to D:OS2 then BG1&2, and that's where I think a lot of disappointment comes from.

Even if Larian bases a lot of BG3 on D:OS2 it is not a copy-paste job. Perhaps they saved some time on finding new voice and fun, but they are still building a game with more of everything, so the dev time is understandably longer. Also D:OS2 felt rather unfinished in its later staged, so lets keep fingers crossed that BG3 will avoid that fate.

Not the clone, no. Reskin I believe it's usually called.

An extreme example of this, I'd say, are UFO 1 and 2 (the original ones from Microprose, not the recent remakes by Firaxis). Apart from very minor changes (like 2-level maps), literally everything in the game is absolutely the same, only renamed and re-drawn.

With BG3, there's clearly more difference in the most important part of the engine which is visual / cinematic, and the rest is... renamed and re-drawn?

Originally Posted by RutgerF

Not the clone, no. Reskin I believe it's usually called.
(â€¦)
With BG3, there's clearly more difference in the most important part of the engine which is visual / cinematic, and the rest is... renamed and re-drawn?

Thatâ€™s even further from the truth. Even if BG3 was build in the same engine (which it isnâ€™t - clearly a lot has been added), using the same ruleset it would still be a new campaign, with new characters, quests, areas, writing and conquest. While tutorial in both games happens on a ship, those ships have different layouts, content and items.

Ruleset, unlike UFOs, also is fundamentally different. Do I need to list all? % to hit, advantage, per rest abilities, rest system, camp and minicamp and list could go on and on.

The most one can accuse BG3 of, is feeling like a sequel to D:OS2 rather then BG3 but even that has some caveats.

If you cannot see the similarities between the two stories then I think you are purposefully being a bit obtuse.

Does that mean they will continue on being very similar? No.
Is that necessarily a bad thing? No.

But there are fundamental similarities that exist between the two games. I honestly think a lot of it is brought on by making companions also be able to be 'origin characters'. This is a concept that I like, but I never quite understand why Larian has to make every origin character sort of have the same plight... or at least it is something they seem to struggle with in their last two games. Everyone needs to escape the ship, get the collar off/parasite out and deal with a very similar big bad. Then after a while their paths diverge, even though the same major overarching plot applies to them. But it seems like they could just be very different from the beginning. Like I see no reason why they have to share the burden of the collar or parasite - this mechanism is not necessary for having a similar goal toward the end of the game.

But eh - it is what it is. I loved D:OS2, one of my top 2 favorite games of all-time with The Witcher 3. I really like Baldur's Gate 3 so far. You can offer criticism without hating something.

Originally Posted by Lake Plisko

I honestly think a lot of it is brought on by making companions also be able to be 'origin characters'. This is a concept that I like, but I never quite understand why Larian has to make every origin character sort of have the same plight... or at least it is something they seem to struggle with in their last two games. Everyone needs to escape the ship, get the collar off/parasite out and deal with a very similar big bad. Then after a while their paths diverge, even though the same major overarching plot applies to them. But it seems like they could just be very different from the beginning. Like I see no reason why they have to share the burden of the collar or parasite - this mechanism is not necessary for having a similar goal toward the end of the game.

That pretty simple to asnwer. Because they are all playable, they need to share a lot of content, and because writing unique multiple playable protagonists with different motivations and objectives would lead to even more dialogue to be written rather then occasional character specific lines - that was the case in D:OS2 and is likely to stay the same in BG3. Imagine not having tadpole, and how many interactions would be removed. Tadpole, like source, act as a convenient narrative device to override any roleplaying goals player might make, and conveniently ties player character to the plot of the game no matter their origin, or imagined background. Tadpole seems to be an equivalent of source, then collar - we ain't gonna be rid of it, and likely will tie every single origin to the plot till the end of the game.

Having different origins start in different situations, could also clash with coop - do you have individual players start in different parts of the map and having to meet? Do you force them to play singleplayer intro, before starting game proper? As it is, you can create coop experience and all start as fellow prisoners. I think it's very neat for coop, a bit less exciting for singleplayer.

Originally Posted by Wormerine

Originally Posted by Lake Plisko

I honestly think a lot of it is brought on by making companions also be able to be 'origin characters'. This is a concept that I like, but I never quite understand why Larian has to make every origin character sort of have the same plight... or at least it is something they seem to struggle with in their last two games. Everyone needs to escape the ship, get the collar off/parasite out and deal with a very similar big bad. Then after a while their paths diverge, even though the same major overarching plot applies to them. But it seems like they could just be very different from the beginning. Like I see no reason why they have to share the burden of the collar or parasite - this mechanism is not necessary for having a similar goal toward the end of the game.

That pretty simple to asnwer. Because they are all playable, they need to share a lot of content, and because writing unique multiple playable protagonists with different motivations and objectives would lead to even more dialogue to be written rather then occasional character specific lines - that was the case in D:OS2 and is likely to stay the same in BG3. Imagine not having tadpole, and how many interactions would be removed. Tadpole, like source, act as a convenient narrative device to override any roleplaying goals player might make, and conveniently ties player character to the plot of the game no matter their origin, or imagined background. Tadpole seems to be an equivalent of source, then collar - we ain't gonna be rid of it, and likely will tie every single origin to the plot till the end of the game.

Having different origins start in different situations, could also clash with coop - do you have individual players start in different parts of the map and having to meet? Do you force them to play singleplayer intro, before starting game proper? As it is, you can create coop experience and all start as fellow prisoners. I think it's very neat for coop, a bit less exciting for singleplayer.

So that is what I was thinking, but then I thought (and again, this would fundamentally change the game, but in theory) if you removed the tadpole/mindflayers as the main story and added in something else down the line that brought them together... it doesn't seem like it would be that hard.

Default Tav could wake up on the beach.
Astarion could wake up in the Dank Crypt since he is a vampire.
Gale could teleport into the setting like he already seems to do. (At least he did when I did my playthrough)
Lae'Zel could be on some kind of quest in the area for her people or whatever.
Shadowheart could wake up somewhere nearby not knowing what happened to her.
Wyll could be hanging out in the village - like he already is.

Which is to say... as long as you come up for a reason to them all to be in the same place or near the same place it doesn't seem like it is that big of a deal. If using the existing map they could all just start out at different areas near the village and the quests could all kick off from there... and some of them could be "side quests", while others would be part of whatever the main story is. It would restrict any content, it would just change the beginning parts of the game in a minor way... and you could introduce them all with their own little side quest for wherever they start - which doesn't seem like a very big lift.

I'd like it better if they were all raised at Candlekeep.

Originally Posted by Lake Plisko

So that is what I was thinking, but then I thought (and again, this would fundamentally change the game, but in theory) if you removed the tadpole/mindflayers as the main story and added in something else down the line that brought them together... it doesn't seem like it would be that hard.

Coming up with seperate motivations to pursue in an intertwined story which brings them all together for, what (not sure what the final number will be) companions, plus custom does sound rather hard. Plus custom character who can have whatever motivations player will imagine. At this point you are writing 8 different protagoninsts, rather then one protagonist with minor variations. Interactions of every origin with NPCs would need to be different as they are not pursuing same goals.

Seperating party would also have major impact on balance - as it is game is designed for you to play with companions from the get-go. Starting by yourself, let's say as Karlach in the northern part of the map wouldn't be a fun experience, by yourself on lvl1. And making sure that content all over the map is appropriate for lvl1 solo, would mean that this party cRPG isnt' well suited for parties for a large chunk of act1. That just would work - designing content that can be explored on different levels, from different directions etc. would be rough.

Quote

added in something else down the line that brought them together.

So you add tadpole or equivalent somewhere down the line or rather it seems to me that what you are really asking for are seperate origin introductions - something to introduce characters before their capture by mindflayers, ala. Dragon Age: Origins/Cyberpunk77. It could be cool, but really you are just adding stuff before game proper (and story proper) kick off. DA:O did some quality worldbuilding with it, but in Cyberpunk I felt those to be rather pointless, and would rather have the game developing protagonist I play, rather then giving me a short introduction with no relevance to the rest of the game.

Originally Posted by Wormerine

Originally Posted by RutgerF

Not the clone, no. Reskin I believe it's usually called.
(â€¦)
With BG3, there's clearly more difference in the most important part of the engine which is visual / cinematic, and the rest is... renamed and re-drawn?

Thatâ€™s even further from the truth. Even if BG3 was build in the same engine (which it isnâ€™t - clearly a lot has been added), using the same ruleset it would still be a new campaign, with new characters, quests, areas, writing and conquest. While tutorial in both games happens on a ship, those ships have different layouts, content and items.

Ruleset, unlike UFOs, also is fundamentally different. Do I need to list all? % to hit, advantage, per rest abilities, rest system, camp and minicamp and list could go on and on.

The most one can accuse BG3 of, is feeling like a sequel to D:OS2 rather then BG3 but even that has some caveats.

You are either kidding or trolling me. Alright, I'll dissect your points, one by one.

General plot line will be clearly different, because it's set in a different framework (FR vs. whatever Larian calls the world of D:OS). Or at least it will look different, on a high level. But what we'll see if we zoom in?

First of all, maps are absolutely out of the question - I think a lot of people, possibly including some at WoTC, would be furious if Larian would re-use some of D:OS' locations. But - the thing about BG3 is that it is set in a universe with almost 50 years of accumulated lore, across all DnD editions. You need almost no creativity when it comes to map design - you just take whatever map(s) for this area have been created before, either official or fanfics, and build on top of that, adding a bit of flavour here and there. It's not a very demanding, intensive process - Larian could have generated them and then applied some manual polish, for all we know.
Characters - are they really new? Astarion, just like his predecessor, greets us with a knife at our necks. Why Larian reused this bit? Did they run out of psychedelics, because delivery chain got disrupted due to covid? This is my biggest gripe so far - this, and countless others like it. I feel cheated when I see characters, re-skinned and renamed, behaving exactly like they did in the previous product of the same company. I don't care if their hair's colour and / or dialogue lines are different this time - it's the same character as before, and they behave more or less the same as they did before. Deja-vu.
I can't really say much about quests and writing, as I never played any other Larian's game before (for more than 5 minutes, anyway). This can be better analysed by someone who did. Also, not sure what you call "conquest".
Ship - maps have already been addressed above. At the same time, a ship is a ship, even if it looks different.
Ruleset. I think even Larian perfectly understands that they can't pass a D:OS clone as a DnD game. So yes, they added some new mechanics that create a certain degree of familiarity for those who know what DnD is. The emphasis, however, is on "some". I can only assume that the stuff available from EA's day 1 was simple to add. The rest is problematic, due to the engine (probably being a Gordian knot made of glass at this point).
An example: how much time it took them to implement Skill Expertise - almost 2 years into EA, innit? I haven't been around for a while, so feel free to correct me, but afaik we are still waiting for proper multi-attack and reactions.
The list can go on, but Niara has already described the fundamental issues with similarities, in a much more succinct and lucid way than I will ever be able to.

These shameless "borrowings" will be completely unnoticed, of course, for everyone who didn't play D:OS2 and doesn't know about them. Me? I detest cheaters.

And yet, I have a group of friends who love BG3 and couldn't go past 5 hours of DoS2. I wonder why it is the case if boths games are so similar...

Hm... apart from the very basic fundamentals, which is normal as each studio has a certain style and mark with their games, I can't say that at any point through playing BG3 did I feel like it reminded me of DOS2.

Now you could say that in relation to DOS2;

Nautiloid = Merryweather
Beach = Fort Joy Beach
Astarion = Sebille
Tadpole = Source
And so on...

But as someone who played DOS2 religiously for a long time, I can't say the experience of it ever poured into BG3 and made me reminisce. To me the experiences are vastly different, it's like comparing the moon and the sun. Yes they both share the sky and stars, but are nothing alike.

Originally Posted by RutgerF

First of all, maps are absolutely out of the question - I think a lot of people, possibly including some at WoTC, would be furious if Larian would re-use some of D:OS' locations. But - the thing about BG3 is that it is set in a universe with almost 50 years of accumulated lore, across all DnD editions. You need almost no creativity when it comes to map design - you just take whatever map(s) for this area have been created before, either official or fanfics, and build on top of that, adding a bit of flavour here and there. It's not a very demanding, intensive process - Larian could have generated them and then applied some manual polish, for all we know.
Characters - are they really new? Astarion, just like his predecessor, greets us with a knife at our necks. Why Larian reused this bit? Did they run out of psychedelics, because delivery chain got disrupted due to covid? This is my biggest gripe so far - this, and countless others like it. I feel cheated when I see characters, re-skinned and renamed, behaving exactly like they did in the previous product of the same company. I don't care if their hair's colour and / or dialogue lines are different this time - it's the same character as before, and they behave more or less the same as they did before. Deja-vu.
I can't really say much about quests and writing, as I never played any other Larian's game before (for more than 5 minutes, anyway). This can be better analysed by someone who did. Also, not sure what you call "conquest".
Ship - maps have already been addressed above. At the same time, a ship is a ship, even if it looks different.
Ruleset. I think even Larian perfectly understands that they can't pass a D:OS clone as a DnD game. So yes, they added some new mechanics that create a certain degree of familiarity for those who know what DnD is. The emphasis, however, is on "some". I can only assume that the stuff available from EA's day 1 was simple to add. The rest is problematic, due to the engine (probably being a Gordian knot made of glass at this point).
An example: how much time it took them to implement Skill Expertise - almost 2 years into EA, innit? I haven't been around for a while, so feel free to correct me, but afaik we are still waiting for proper multi-attack and reactions.
The list can go on, but Niara has already described the fundamental issues with similarities, in a much more succinct and lucid way than I will ever be able to.

These shameless "borrowings" will be completely unnoticed, of course, for everyone who didn't play D:OS2 and doesn't know about them. Me? I detest cheaters.

Yes, but none of it constitutes clone and definitely not a reskin. If anything in many of those similarities the skin is what is the most similar. Take the opening ship sequences. Ignore for a second the "skin" or theming of the sequence (being a prisoner on a ship under attack and having to escape) - once you scrap that, how similar are they really?

That they choose to repeat that much from their highly acclaimed D:OS2 I think it tells something about Larian priorities - I think it goes in line with how little they think of importance of the narrative. Mario games often repeate same level theming but they are clearly not copies. I suspect Larian might be thinking the same way - "We did D:OS2, how can we make it better?", rather then thinking of a new story to tell.

As to combat, yes, it is not faithful adaptation of D&D 5e, but it's not D:OS2 system either. It just not - I am trying to come up with something that would be same, and I can't. Stats work differently, there are classes, to-hit works differently, THERE ARE HALF ASSED REACTIONS, which is not something that existed in D:OS2, surfaces for the most part work differently, skills aren't on cooldown, there are saving throws, no armor system, the game doesn't use action points. And so on and so on. Do they feel similar? In many aspects yes, but it's down to Larian modifying D&D 5e to their design ideology, not to them reusing D:OS2 systems.

Sure, D:OS2 and BG3 are very similar in many aspects - both in terms of character archetypes, plot points, and overarching design ideals, but let's keep criticisms based in reality. It's not clone nor a reskin - those words have a meaning and that meaning doesn't apply to BG3 without some really heavy overexaduration. Is it reimagening of D:OS2 in a D&D IP? Perhaps, but we will need to see more to judge that.

Originally Posted by Wormerine

Is it reimagening of D:OS2 in a D&D IP? Perhaps, but we will need to see more to judge that.

Based on what we've seen so far, that would probably be the closest, yes.

Originally Posted by RutgerF

The rest is problematic, due to the engine (probably being a Gordian knot made of glass at this point).

Perfect.

Originally Posted by Niara

We begin having been taken onto a ship against our will,
We break out amidst unexpected confusion, and get our bearings.
Oh no, the ship is under attack!
We play witness to several entities far more powerful than us flexing their powers as we try to escape.
During the escape we are thrown clear of the foundering ship.
We are saved from certain death by some other powerful force deus-ex-machina preserving us.
We wake up on a beach and, one by one have the option of re-introducing to our companions, who were also on the ship and who also miraculously survived.
Of note, the rogue with a tortured past of slavery greets us by putting a knife to our throat... classy.
There's also a trained soldier who swears loyalty to their queen first and foremost, and won't her a bad thing about her,
And a mage with a dry and snarky wit but a somewhat superior way of talking,
And a woman who keeps her secrets, but has a mysterious connection to some other power, not like the one we all share,
And one who speaks incredibly highly of himself and puts on airs about his greatness - his current situation is largely a result of consorting with fiends.
Our companions and us all have the same 'othering' special power source in common, and will be reviled and hunted for it.
We soon discover that, indeed, there is a powerful organisation hunting us - and us specifically, it seems.
Meanwhile, other powerful entities speak to us in our dreams offering us power and/or solutions, if we do as they want.

.... Aaaand that's the intro to D:0S2. Want to hear the salient intro beats to BG3?

Pretty much this.

Originally Posted by Krom

Originally Posted by Niara

We begin having been taken onto a ship against our will,
We break out amidst unexpected confusion, and get our bearings.
Oh no, the ship is under attack!
We play witness to several entities far more powerful than us flexing their powers as we try to escape.
During the escape we are thrown clear of the foundering ship.
We are saved from certain death by some other powerful force deus-ex-machina preserving us.
We wake up on a beach and, one by one have the option of re-introducing to our companions, who were also on the ship and who also miraculously survived.
Of note, the rogue with a tortured past of slavery greets us by putting a knife to our throat... classy.
There's also a trained soldier who swears loyalty to their queen first and foremost, and won't her a bad thing about her,
And a mage with a dry and snarky wit but a somewhat superior way of talking,
And a woman who keeps her secrets, but has a mysterious connection to some other power, not like the one we all share,
And one who speaks incredibly highly of himself and puts on airs about his greatness - his current situation is largely a result of consorting with fiends.
Our companions and us all have the same 'othering' special power source in common, and will be reviled and hunted for it.
We soon discover that, indeed, there is a powerful organisation hunting us - and us specifically, it seems.
Meanwhile, other powerful entities speak to us in our dreams offering us power and/or solutions, if we do as they want.

.... Aaaand that's the intro to D:0S2. Want to hear the salient intro beats to BG3?

Pretty much this.

Yup. And that isn't to say it is necessarily bad.

It's just very obvious that the story so far is very similar to the point where it is almost a retelling of D:OS2 with a completely different skin. Which to me is fine, the game just isn't going to be getting any points for being original unless it deviates. Also - we haven't been introduced to all of the companions yet and maybe these were just the ones they were playing it "safe" with and reusing some ideas they had in the past... and maybe that is why they were included in EA.

I also think BG3 is going to reach significantly more people than D:OS2 - so perhaps that is the reason for recycling it. They had a formula that works and they don't want to mess up the first enormous release they have as a game studio.

They can use whatever cliche or story hook that "works" as they want.

As long as they avoid the same mistakes of DOS2. Thus they need to:

- Have a unique story backround for Tav that does NOT happen when you play as other origin characters, and at least as heavy and impressive.

- Avoid NPC only armors, especially those that look even cooler than whatever the character can wear. That also includes options available to NPCs like body types similar to Halsin's. If only NPCs can have it, even origin characters but not our Tav, then it's a bad design decision.

- Avoid this trend with npcs full armored and equipped with anything they throw at you, only leaving a shortsword or whatever for loot. If they have it, they should drop it. Period. EA is already guilty of this.

Originally Posted by Niara

We begin having been taken onto a ship against our will,
We break out amidst unexpected confusion, and get our bearings.
Oh no, the ship is under attack!
We play witness to several entities far more powerful than us flexing their powers as we try to escape.
During the escape we are thrown clear of the foundering ship.
We are saved from certain death by some other powerful force deus-ex-machina preserving us.
We wake up on a beach and, one by one have the option of re-introducing to our companions, who were also on the ship and who also miraculously survived.
Of note, the rogue with a tortured past of slavery greets us by putting a knife to our throat... classy.
There's also a trained soldier who swears loyalty to their queen first and foremost, and won't her a bad thing about her,
And a mage with a dry and snarky wit but a somewhat superior way of talking,
And a woman who keeps her secrets, but has a mysterious connection to some other power, not like the one we all share,
And one who speaks incredibly highly of himself and puts on airs about his greatness - his current situation is largely a result of consorting with fiends.
Our companions and us all have the same 'othering' special power source in common, and will be reviled and hunted for it.
We soon discover that, indeed, there is a powerful organisation hunting us - and us specifically, it seems.
Meanwhile, other powerful entities speak to us in our dreams offering us power and/or solutions, if we do as they want.

.... Aaaand that's the intro to D:0S2. Want to hear the salient intro beats to BG3?

this made me laugh. At least The Elder Scrolls just does the 'you're a prisoner' thing, but diverges immediately from there. This is..wow

I guess people will lose their minds once Tarquin appears in BG3, either by being an actual NPC or as a cameo.

For those who are unaware, Tarquin is a highly skilled Necromancer and a Scholar in DOS2 who at the end of the game drops a massive exposition about Baldur's Gate, by first referencing a mysterious language known as "Gustavschen", which at the time was a code name for Baldur's Gate 3. And then also mentioning beings that ride dragons and beings that consume minds. And apparently Rivellon no longer holds anything challenging for him, so he vanishes from the world in the epilogue, thus confirming that he actually did manage to enter Faerun

I totally expect to see him in Baldur's Gate.

I 100% expect to see Tarquin, yes... That's the kind of 'hat tip to our own game series' that I don't mind and can appreciate; that's good form, as long as it remains a side-npc without direct impact on the story, which I expect a character like Tarquin to do.

You might not realize is right away but at some point during bg3 EA it will dawn on you that you are just playing reskinned dos2 with broken or unfinished dnd mechanics tossed in.

I liked dos2 so i guess it could be worse but i also have hopes for the rest of the game to deviate from the Larian formula. I have some faith but we shall see.

Originally Posted by Crimsomrider

I guess people will lose their minds once Tarquin appears in BG3, either by being an actual NPC or as a cameo.

For those who are unaware, Tarquin is a highly skilled Necromancer and a Scholar in DOS2 who at the end of the game drops a massive exposition about Baldur's Gate, by first referencing a mysterious language known as "Gustavschen", which at the time was a code name for Baldur's Gate 3. And then also mentioning beings that ride dragons and beings that consume minds. And apparently Rivellon no longer holds anything challenging for him, so he vanishes from the world in the epilogue, thus confirming that he actually did manage to enter Faerun

I totally expect to see him in Baldur's Gate.

That would be a new low.

Originally Posted by Alexlotr

Originally Posted by Crimsomrider

I guess people will lose their minds once Tarquin appears in BG3, either by being an actual NPC or as a cameo.

For those who are unaware, Tarquin is a highly skilled Necromancer and a Scholar in DOS2 who at the end of the game drops a massive exposition about Baldur's Gate, by first referencing a mysterious language known as "Gustavschen", which at the time was a code name for Baldur's Gate 3. And then also mentioning beings that ride dragons and beings that consume minds. And apparently Rivellon no longer holds anything challenging for him, so he vanishes from the world in the epilogue, thus confirming that he actually did manage to enter Faerun

I totally expect to see him in Baldur's Gate.

That would be a new low.

Baldur's Gate had a character literally named "Lord Foreshadow" that hinted at future properties planned by Black Isle. This sort of thing is very much in line with the history of this franchise. As long as Tarquin plays no more than a bit roll it will be fine.

Originally Posted by dwig

Originally Posted by Alexlotr

Originally Posted by Crimsomrider

I guess people will lose their minds once Tarquin appears in BG3, either by being an actual NPC or as a cameo.

For those who are unaware, Tarquin is a highly skilled Necromancer and a Scholar in DOS2 who at the end of the game drops a massive exposition about Baldur's Gate, by first referencing a mysterious language known as "Gustavschen", which at the time was a code name for Baldur's Gate 3. And then also mentioning beings that ride dragons and beings that consume minds. And apparently Rivellon no longer holds anything challenging for him, so he vanishes from the world in the epilogue, thus confirming that he actually did manage to enter Faerun

I totally expect to see him in Baldur's Gate.

That would be a new low.

Baldur's Gate had a character literally named "Lord Foreshadow" that hinted at future properties planned by Black Isle. This sort of thing is very much in line with the history of this franchise. As long as Tarquin plays no more than a bit roll it will be fine.

How is it the same? Lord Foreshadow was not part of any other ip. They just introduced a character who vaguely talked about future (of the same world). Including Tarquin in BG3 is the same as putting Liara from Mass Effect or Kane from C&C or G-man from Half-Life into BG3.

Tarquin is ok, he sells some good, ehm... merchandise, yeah that's it :3

Originally Posted by Niara

The atmosphere, tone, setting and set-up are all entirely different... and you know this, and are being facetious.

I could split hairs and say 'a cart is not a ship' - in order to make that 'the same' you'd have to reduce the descriptor to an incredibly generic term, to the point of the statement having no meaning; this is not true of the example you're holding it up against, whihc are both set upon ,and use as their introductory setting, a literal ship - one is an astral ship, but ships they both very much are, in every way that matters for the plot element.

I could split hairs and say that we do not stay on the cart, and the rest happens in a different location, unlike the example you're holding it up against, for which the ship is the entire setting for the introductory sequence.

I could split hairs and say 'arrive at a camp' is not at all the same as 'break free on a ship'

I could point out that your last example is entirely different to the thing you are holding it up against, and is by your own descriptive words not even remotely the same thing at all...

I don't really need to do any of that, because you already know this, and if I try, you will just continue to be flippant and pedantic for the sake of being so, without really engaging with the topic in a meaningful way.... and I know that you are capable of being far better than that, Ragnarok, so it would serve neither of us to feed that aspect of your behaviour.

Rather than doing that, I'd recommend you address yourself to the wealth of individual elements that pair one-to-one between these two games opening introductions and first acts; they are numerous, specific and sufficiently detailed to be visible to many players as directly recycled elements. Please do share your thoughts and feelings about those.

Wow, well THIS is a language barrier. First of all, why would you start your points with a poorly disguised antagonism regarding another user's way of thinking and behavior? All I see as a bywalker is a logical thought, that a lot of stories follow same patterns to engage the audience. Why would you deny that? Human brain is very good at discerning patterns and it is natural that Rag, likely having a well developed imagination and abstract thinking capabilities?, was able to read similarities in the plot structure of those games. I can do it as well. Also I think there is nothing bad about having same plot structure, if it works - engages the player.

The overall mood of the sword coast surely draws inspiration from the DOS games. However, the level design itself is far more complex with a fully developed vertical level design system. I don't remember the multi-leveled design with wooden beam walking in DOS2. Don't recall complexity In approaching a location either - there are a lot of interactive environment pieces like mushrooms you can jump on, protected barriers that require conditions to break, several ways to infiltrate locations. What is fundamentally wrong with improving on an already strong base of the original ideas? What do you expect from the level design personally? What exactly don't you like about the current one? And how subjective is it?

Quote

First of all, why would you start your points with a poorly disguised antagonism regarding another user's way of thinking and behavior?

I didn't. I made an overt comment about the other poster's behaviour and the pointlessness of rising to it. I disguised nothing.

Quote

All I see as a bywalker is a logical thought, that a lot of stories follow same patterns to engage the audience. Why would you deny that?

I didn't.

Quote

What is fundamentally wrong with improving on an already strong base of the original ideas?

Nothing, unless what you're trying to make is a new story. Which they are.

Quote

What exactly don't you like about the current one?

The extremely long laundry list of near-identical elements copied wholesale like a full-body transplant across to BG3 from D:os2, with barely a coat of paint slapped on them.

Quote

And how subjective is it?

It's not; the list is one of purely objective, academic facts about the two games' intro sequences.

==

Quote

What do you expect from the level design personally?

Many things, none of which are at all relevant to this particular element of the discussion.

Your post sums to:

"I think it's not bad that Bg3 and D:OS2 have the same intro, why do you think it is?"

I think it's bad because they're the same, to a magnitude that is highly visible and very off-putting, and the number and degree of recycled elements is appalling. Taking inspiration to use similar elements in your game, from other popular tropes or effective plot devices is one thing, but when you lift the majority of the elements of the intro of your previous game, and transplant them wholesale with barley a coat of paint into your new game, in a completely different IP, and treat that as your base, that's lazy, unengaging and dishonest design. I'm not satisfied with being fed a microwaved, lightly-reseasoned bowl of yester-year's gruel as the entrÃ©e to what is supposed to be a new experience. If you ARE okay with that, that's fine for you; I'm not.

I find that last post oddly satisfying ...
Not talking about the content, but the format. :3

Originally Posted by neprostoman

The overall mood of the sword coast surely draws inspiration from the DOS games. However, the level design itself is far more complex with a fully developed vertical level design system. I don't remember the multi-leveled design with wooden beam walking in DOS2. Don't recall complexity In approaching a location either - there are a lot of interactive environment pieces like mushrooms you can jump on, protected barriers that require conditions to break, several ways to infiltrate locations. What is fundamentally wrong with improving on an already strong base of the original ideas?

And that's why I think calling BG3 a "clone" or "reskin" is very unfair. Why I personally dislike this is this, to requote myself:

Originally Posted by Wormerine

That they choose to repeat that much from their highly acclaimed D:OS2 I think it tells something about Larian priorities - I think it goes in line with how little they think of importance of the narrative. Mario games often repeate same level theming but they are clearly not copies. I suspect Larian might be thinking the same way - "We did D:OS2, how can we make it better?", rather then thinking of a new story to tell.

BG3 is a cRPG - as such first and foremost I see it as an interactive, story-driven medium. That's definitely how I saw BG1&2 and most of Bioware catalogue, with gameplay being secondary. Mario games have been using pretty much same plot and world theming for many of their games, but it doesn't matter because story is not something one plays Mario game for (at least I don't).

Seeing the story being reused is a far bigger crime for me in an RPG, then it is in most other genres. It is even less welcome as I thought story in D:OS2 was rather poor, so seeing story beats that remind me of that game is not welcome, and I see issues I had with that game bleed into BG3 already.

On top of that, it adds to the frustration that in spite of a new setting and new ruleset BG3 shares a lot of design principles of D:OS2 - which is understandable as both were made by Larian, building on the same tech, but it is still unwelcome by me. Similar story beats only reinforce that earie similarity. I mean even Bethesda didn't start you in Fallout3 as a prisoner again.

Originally Posted by Niara

I didn't. I made an overt comment about the other poster's behaviour and the pointlessness of rising to it. I disguised nothing.

You wrote:

Originally Posted by Niara

and you know this, and are being facetious.

Originally Posted by Niara

I don't really need to do any of that, because you already know this, and if I try, you will just continue to be flippant and pedantic for the sake of being so, without really engaging with the topic in a meaningful way.... and I know that you are capable of being far better than that, Ragnarok, so it would serve neither of us to feed that aspect of your behaviour.

There is a certain level of antagonism here, to be specific - prejudice and dismissive commentary. By disguising I meant that it wasn't a blunt disagreement, but still you belittled another user's commentary just because he didn't write a PHD degree level of commentary and analysis and referred to the fundamental perceptional concepts. If you didn't mean it, I get it, but words speak for themselves and I am not that mad and delusional yet to make a statement out of nowhere, even if you want to expose me as such.

Originally Posted by Niara

Nothing, unless what you're trying to make is a new story. Which they are.

Why would making a new story lose anything by drawing inspiration from successful projects and building on that legacy? Please, elaborate.

Originally Posted by Niara

The extremely long laundry list of near-identical elements copied wholesale like a full-body transplant across to BG3 from D:os2, with barely a coat of paint slapped on them.

Those being?
Before you answer, I'll try myself! There is a ship in the DOS2 and there is a Nautiloid in BG3. Both are moving vessels with all the underlying consequences of being vessels. But there are differences as well:

- One if flying and one is sailing. (rule of cool)
- One is a known human environment, while the other is an alien environment (more interesting to explore, visually more thought-provoking)
- In the DOS2 case there is a clear social message (separatism, racism, fear of those different) from the start while BG3 intro is structured more like an adventure with a discernible evil (mind flayers) posing threat to MC.

Those are just few things that come to my mind, they are not to prove you wrong or anything, but my take. I am eager to hear yours.

Originally Posted by Niara

It's not; the list is one of purely objective, academic facts about the two games' intro sequences.

But surely your opinion on those facts is subjective, isn't it?
Or please, tell me, how question about someone's liking can be objective? My question was HOW subjective is it, because it clearly is

Can you please try to prove otherwise?
Once again, I only write this because I don't want my questions and argument to fall under the unnecessary pressure you are exerting by long reads, using one POV in a dismissive manner to the other and other "tools".

Originally Posted by Niara

I'm not satisfied with being fed a microwaved, lightly-reseasoned bowl of yester-year's gruel as the entrÃ©e to what is supposed to be a new experience. If you ARE okay with that, that's fine for you; I'm not.

I am not okay with being fed a gruel!

Who is?
Why do you write this conclusion as if everyone sees the world with your eyes? I just don't see the blatant copy pasting you are talking about, this is my vision and the vision of some others probably. You were acting in the convo with Rag like he knows deep in his heart that your perception of things is something universal right and just doesn't want to admit it like he is some stubborn child or something, lol. You were denying him his own vision and mentioning some language barrier at the same time... Anyway, I respect your opinion and that was my last post on the matter, even though I'd like to read your answer. Lets channel our frustration somewhere else, shall we?

Originally Posted by Wormerine

On top of that, it adds to the frustration that in spite of a new setting and new ruleset BG3 shares a lot of design principles of D:OS2 - which is understandable as both were made by Larian, building on the same tech, but it is still unwelcome by me. Similar story beats only reinforce that earie similarity. I mean even Bethesda didn't start you in Fallout3 as a prisoner again.

Hm. Lets imagine (just for a second) there was no DOS and DOS2. Would BG3 being a standalone project alter your perception? Would you see its story (the bits we know about now) as mediocre? When I was first playing BG3 I did find the story very engaging, I can't name a major flaw in the storytelling without inventing it and purposefully squeezing it out of myself

Originally Posted by neprostoman

Hm. Lets imagine (just for a second) there was no DOS and DOS2. Would BG3 being a standalone project alter your perception? Would you see its story (the bits we know about now) as mediocre? When I was first playing BG3 I did find the story very engaging, I can't name a major flaw in the storytelling without inventing it and purposefully squeezing it out of myself

It's a bit of a pointless endeavour asking if the perception of BG3 would be different were it a standalone project as it isn't, but just to play along I can categorically state I would still find the companions unbearable and poorly written and the story left me totally uninterested. Subjective takes of course because half the fanbase is salivating over Astarion ad nauseam.

Haven't played for almost 2 years but I do recall some pretty glaring flaws in the story, the main culprit being informed at every opportunity that you must rush to seek a cure for the tadpole immediately but then leisurely being able to go about your business with no consequences.
Why can a Vampire spawn walk in the daylight? Apparently because of the tadpole.
Why are all these companions with their extraordinary backgrounds and tales of great power now level 1? Apparently because of the tadpole. Those are not particularly good examples of writing.
There is also Shadowheart's box that is so integral to the story that somehow it finds its way back to you regardless of whether you kill Shadowheart or choose not to use her as a companion (as far as I know anyway, it might have changed in recent patches?).

Originally Posted by neprostoman

Originally Posted by Wormerine

On top of that, it adds to the frustration that in spite of a new setting and new ruleset BG3 shares a lot of design principles of D:OS2 - which is understandable as both were made by Larian, building on the same tech, but it is still unwelcome by me. Similar story beats only reinforce that earie similarity. I mean even Bethesda didn't start you in Fallout3 as a prisoner again.

Hm. Lets imagine (just for a second) there was no DOS and DOS2. Would BG3 being a standalone project alter your perception? Would you see its story (the bits we know about now) as mediocre? When I was first playing BG3 I did find the story very engaging, I can't name a major flaw in the storytelling without inventing it and purposefully squeezing it out of myself

"If the beetles didn't exist, what would you think about Metallica?"

"If Rome hadn't existed, would you like French Fries?"

All three of these questions have the same end result, nothing. Because DOS and DOS2 DO exist.

Originally Posted by neprostoman

Hm. Lets imagine (just for a second) there was no DOS and DOS2. Would BG3 being a standalone project alter your perception? Would you see its story (the bits we know about now) as mediocre? When I was first playing BG3 I did find the story very engaging, I can't name a major flaw in the storytelling without inventing it and purposefully squeezing it out of myself

What do you mean by standalone project? No D:OS1&2? No BG1&2? No D&D?

For my response below I would assume D:OS1&2.Though it's a bit pointless argument. I didn't find chaining system as infuriating during my first playthrough of D:OS1, but after three games I can't bloody stand it. Shortcoming become aparent overtime, and repeating a shortcoming isn't equal to making it for a first time.

(...)

I just cut a long laundry list of issues I have, but I don't think I have to. There is one thing, that BG3 does abysmally bad, and that is the main issue I have with the game. Worldbuilding in BG3 is abysmal.

I don't buy into anything in BG3 - that tadpole is anything more then a convenient McGuffin that will do whatever game devs need it to do. That Grove is a place people would live in. That Goblins can't locate grove to which they have a paved straight row. The whole map feels like disjointed content. NPC seem to be unaware of what happened outside their little zones, and don't seem to have lives outside the lines they deliver. Our companions don't feel like well rounded characters, but they revolve around the little plot they have, with little texture around it. I don't buy into tedpole being a credible threat or temptation. Content and characters feel so artificial that it's difficult to care about anything. I generally have trouble slaughtering NPCs, and I felt nothing doing evil path and slaugthering tieflings and grove. No one in BG3 feels alive to begin with.

Originally Posted by neprostoman

Would you see its story (the bits we know about now) as mediocre?

And to be clear mediocre would be very generous in my book. Just finished Cyberpunk and that was mediocre - generally coherent story with some bad pacing, but promising but underdeveloped characters but generally clear direction, motivation and logic. I wouldn't call BG1&2 amazing, but they were fine. BG3 narrative side is poor. There are definitely cRPGs I enjoyed playing less then BG3, but I would never ever recommend anyone to play BG3 for story.

Edit. This conversation is a bit of a mess as there are posters with different stances that get mixed up. I really don't have that much problem with BG3 starting as a prisoner on the ship - outside the fact that I don't think the sequence works well in either of games. What worries is not that BG3 seems to be like another game, it worries me that BG3 seems like another game that I thought was narratively poor. If I watch a movie and think "Ok, it reminds me a lot of Lord of the Rings" it doesn't necessarily need to be a bad thing, but if I watch a movie and think "ok, it reminds me a lot of Mortal Engines" then it's probably not a good sign.

We are playing hypothetical games now?

The most i would be concerned about story is, how can a lvl 1(!) cleric of shar have such an important mission that they took her memory away until a specific spot? She won't get any levels back(assuming she lost levels as well, which she didn't).

How do you even trust a nobody to do that? There is only one answer, she's not a nobody.

There is something about all the npcs-origin characters, something that overshadows your own custom origin character, which is actually a nobody.

So you're asking me to be excited about playing a game, where i know for example Astarion will always be a better rogue than you(bite-buff), Where Gale is gonna be a better Wizard than you, etc etc.

So there is your one thing that makes not excited for example. Origin characters, and protagonists as well, in a game where there used to be only one protagonist.

There are several other problems as well. It doesn't mean the story is gonna be bad. But the origin system alone means one thing. If origin characters can be protagonists as well, they can live through a protagonist's eyes. Which means they will always have something more from their backrounds compared to Tav. I eagerly await to see how are they going to avoid the same problem they created themselves in DOS2.

Originally Posted by neprostoman

Originally Posted by Wormerine

On top of that, it adds to the frustration that in spite of a new setting and new ruleset BG3 shares a lot of design principles of D:OS2 - which is understandable as both were made by Larian, building on the same tech, but it is still unwelcome by me. Similar story beats only reinforce that earie similarity. I mean even Bethesda didn't start you in Fallout3 as a prisoner again.

Hm. Lets imagine (just for a second) there was no DOS and DOS2. Would BG3 being a standalone project alter your perception? Would you see its story (the bits we know about now) as mediocre? When I was first playing BG3 I did find the story very engaging, I can't name a major flaw in the storytelling without inventing it and purposefully squeezing it out of myself

I am gonna chime in and give my agreement to Wormerine for this question. I agree with most of what he said, but especially the worldbuilding. The whole area where we are doesn't actually feel like anyplace. I'm actually convinced that Larian is actively trying to keep us from caring about the place. Every plot point is being tied up in a way that either promises to be concluded somewhere else, or is concluded in a way where we're not supposed to want to come back and check in on anybody. I also have played through early access a couple times and don't feel like I know anything meaningful about the wider world and what anything is like. I'm not invested in the world at all, because the story feels alergic to telling me about the world.

And the tadpole is a definite narrative failing. It's like Larian couldn't pick a lane with it. It's presented as an urgent threat, but the game undermines that immediately, but without actually giving a proper conclusion to that initial, visceral promise of threat. Or if there is a conclusion coming, then it's coming long after any impact or satisfaction can be had. Also, if players take that initial threat seriously, then they lose out on a lot of character story. I'm no crpg expert, honestly I don't even think I have very high standards at all, but I think BG3 is the most disappointing crpg I've personally experienced as far as story is concerned.

Originally Posted by Gray Ghost

Originally Posted by neprostoman

Originally Posted by Wormerine

On top of that, it adds to the frustration that in spite of a new setting and new ruleset BG3 shares a lot of design principles of D:OS2 - which is understandable as both were made by Larian, building on the same tech, but it is still unwelcome by me. Similar story beats only reinforce that earie similarity. I mean even Bethesda didn't start you in Fallout3 as a prisoner again.

Hm. Lets imagine (just for a second) there was no DOS and DOS2. Would BG3 being a standalone project alter your perception? Would you see its story (the bits we know about now) as mediocre? When I was first playing BG3 I did find the story very engaging, I can't name a major flaw in the storytelling without inventing it and purposefully squeezing it out of myself

I am gonna chime in and give my agreement to Wormerine for this question. I agree with most of what he said, but especially the worldbuilding. The whole area where we are doesn't actually feel like anyplace. I'm actually convinced that Larian is actively trying to keep us from caring about the place. Every plot point is being tied up in a way that either promises to be concluded somewhere else, or is concluded in a way where we're not supposed to want to come back and check in on anybody. I also have played through early access a couple times and don't feel like I know anything meaningful about the wider world and what anything is like. I'm not invested in the world at all, because the story feels alergic to telling me about the world.

And the tadpole is a definite narrative failing. It's like Larian couldn't pick a lane with it. It's presented as an urgent threat, but the game undermines that immediately, but without actually giving a proper conclusion to that initial, visceral promise of threat. Or if there is a conclusion coming, then it's coming long after any impact or satisfaction can be had. Also, if players take that initial threat seriously, then they lose out on a lot of character story. I'm no crpg expert, honestly I don't even think I have very high standards at all, but I think BG3 is the most disappointing crpg I've personally experienced as far as story is concerned.

I see the tadpole thing as a compromise more than a failure. Players have shown that they hate timed constrains in CRPG with Kingmaker, so I am ok with having this urgency in the background.

My issue is that it seems like it's actually a plot point that the tadpole isn't truly a timed constraint. Part of the mystery of the story is that we aren't changing the way we should. The game wants us to explore and take our time, but the tadpole as presented now is implicitly encouraging us to hurry through. But if you hurry through-and I guarantee you that plenty of first time players will, at least at first (I know I did) then you're just losing out on the story. The game tries to have it both ways and it's unsatisfying as a result. The tadpole is a central part of the game, but the big point of tension-how long until we change-is left to just peter out. That's why I think it's a failure. Even the systems ofthe game undermine the urgency of the tadpole, but we as the audience are never given a cathartic moment where the tension truly breaks.

Imo, if the tadpole was a timed thing that could get us turn into a mind flayer and game over past a certain point, then it wouldn't give abilities and it wouldn't allow Astarion to walk under the sun. It's probably the equivalent bhaalspawn powers of this game, although i could be proven wrong along the way.

If i'm right, it's goona revealed to us at some point that. "you were running for nothing, it's not gonna kill you"

I think you're right that the tadpole isn't timed. I'm quite certain of that in fact. The problem is that in order to get the most out of the game the characters have to behave like it's not. We get a number of hints about it, but the problem is that based on how the game wants us to behave, the reveal you describe should come way sooner, or it should be established as near to the beginning as possible. The fact is, the process of getting camp scenes requires us to ignore the threat of the tadpole and any possibility that it's timed. And I think that means that by the time a true reveal does show up, it will be long after such a reveal would feel satisfying. It'll just be telling the player something they've already figured out.

Maybe in the official release we can discover it in act 1, but they don't want to spoil anything in EA. I don't know.

Akin to how we got rid of the collars in act 1 of DOS2. Which will give ptsd to some i'm sure :PP because of the comparison.

The thing is, I think we've already discovered it. It's just that we discovered it by playing the game and realizing that resting didn't advance the tadpole. If the fact that we're not truly on a timer was meant to be a secret, then the game would probably be structured differently. This opening area wouldn't have so much STUFF to do, stuff that you'd need to rest repeatedly for. And companion scenes wouldn't be tied to long rests.

That is true. I can't know exactly why things are like that, not before i see the actual release, and the actual story unfold.

It does make sense in the beginning to feel rushed, because everyone knows that you have at best days before you turn. Then you have these weird dreams, then you find out it's "not advancing as per usual". I even wonder if the people you talk with have any knowledge on ceremorphosis, besides the mind flayer.

I do agree with most of what others here have brought up - poor world building, poor story-telling and structure, lazy writing, leading to a lacklustre world feeling that hopes to sell itself on pretty graphics and flashy, 'epicness'; the writing itself wouldn't even make publication in train stop paperback pulp (well, it might, but only just at that level), and other have brought up many reasons why in this thread and others.

The issue of timing with the tadpole is that it relies on us breaking immersion in space to make a meta-game acknowledgement, in order to drive itself. We must come out of the game space and say: "Okay, we can see that the tadpole isn't actually on a time limit and we're safe from that, so we can explore." - and we must step out of game to do that, because no actual person in real life, finding themselves in this situation would simply "Trust" that they were not going to be transformed body and soul by this thing that annihilates a person's entire existence, just because ours isn't behaving in the traditional way exactly. No-one would accept that a something to wager their life and immortal soul upon, just on anecdotal information and statements of oddities.

We need to be rushed- and that means not having missable quest lines or side objectives to slow us down - to a point where we, as characters in the world, get confirmed proof from an authority information source that we can reasonably rely on as being an authority on this information (no, Halsin does not work for this; it needs to be an authority on our specific, personal situation), that we are not going to turn by passage of time alone. Once the in-universe characters have been given that information in a mode they can an would be able to rely on, to the magnitude of trusting their entire ongoing existence to that information, THEN we can explore, gain power and experience, gather allies and artefacts, and generally go about our adventure in the way we individually see fit.

You don't rush the players by giving them a hard time limit or a ticking clock - you create the sensation of rushing by swift progression, and you encourage that by presenting, during the rushing section, a lack of branches and other diverting side elements; they should not be available while the rush is on, and they should not be missable as part of that. The information which alleviates the rushing needs to be presented to the characters in-universe, before the world opens up and offers the myriad of possibilities and options it wants to.

==

Originally Posted by neprostoman

Anyway, I respect your opinion and that was my last post on the matter, even though I'd like to read your answer.

The thread has moved on quickly, but in brief, if you wish:

Again, I disguised nothing in what I was saying - Ragnarok and I have gone through this conversation and the shape of it on other topics, numerous times, and we're quite used to how each other responds to things. Unfortunately, between his propensity to latch onto minutia and play the part of the contrarian even when he agrees with an overall topic, and my own weakness for wanting to clarify ad nauseum, it's a counter-productive spiral that goes nowhere if we both end up falling into that exchange. I was not hiding my contempt for that situation when it occurs, but that is not a reflection on, or directed at Rag himself, whom I know is and can be a poster with a lot of interesting perspectives, and a keen eye for detail despite the occasional language barrier issue and the differences in mode of thought that that can sometimes cause.

I've already answered the rest of your questions, if you read the posts you're responding to; I have no problem with drawing inspiration from various elements and tropes that have been successful in the past, as I said, explicitly in my previous response. My issue is that what I see here is not that - it is a more wholesale transplant of the entire shape of the intro and its discrete elements, on large scale, and all together, enough that it is highly visible as being so - if you can't see that, then more power to you; I can, and many others can, and have said so, and it doesn't feel good.

The list that I referenced, and which you asked to see, is the list that I posted in this very thread and which a number of other posters have already acknowledged and reacted to. On individual reused element is not a problem; when so much of the introduction trades on so many directly copied elements that are functionally identical, saving only a (relatively thin) coat of paint, that's when it starts to look tacky and disrespectful - to the Ip, but also to us as consumers. The list itself is not subjective - it is an objective comparison of copied-over details; initially I did not even express an opinion about them, I just listed them, and left it for other people to make up their own minds. I do have an opinion on it - that this is not okay, and that it is poor form and disrespectful; that is my opinion, as I'm voicing in this discussion - pointing out that that's subjective serves no purpose and has no value, because that is true by definition, as is any opinion on any matter voiced by anyone anywhere - you saying so is the equivalent of the kid in the playground who shouts "well that's your opinion! Nyah!" as though saying so constitutes some kind of argument against it. It is my opinion, yes, what's your point?

For BG3, do you feel the Absolute will then be similar to the Immaculates in DOS!? Those that have played the game will understand.

Originally Posted by Niara

We must come out of the game space and say: "Okay, we can see that the tadpole isn't actually on a time limit and we're safe from that, so we can explore." - and we must step out of game to do that

Must we tho?

I mean ... within parameters of forgotten realms (as far as i know) ongoing ceremorphosis erase your personality in matter of hours.

Quote

This initial process, which happened over a period of a few hours,[5] effectively completely replaced the victim's personality with the tadpole's, while still keeping the body alive for the second stage of the transformation

Source: https://forgottenrealms.fandom.com/wiki/Ceremorphosis

So basicaly once we lay down for the first night sleep ... IF we are still aware of oureself ... we *know* (without stepping out of our character) that our Ceremorphosis is alterned and time is not as precious as it would be with regular thing.
Also we can presume that something eating our brain alive would be quite painfull proces.

Sure ...
We can argue on if our character would even have that knowledge ... but i dont think there is deffinitive answer to that ... seems lie "depends on character" kind of thing.

But still this is something that is repeated by every single character that have any knowledge about the thing (Gale, Lae'zel, Nettie, Halsin, Ommeluum) ...

Not to mention that while time may easily seem to stand still in this game ... from "inside" perspective we should keep its flow in mind.
And since only first few hours is essential, even tho we cannot pinpoint the exact time when it would happen, what is certain is that it WOULD happen ... and since its not happening, it can mean only one thing.

So why exactly would we "need to come out of game to acnowledge that"?

---

Slightly off but still related:
I dont think we can apply our (read as real) rules of time and space on this game tho.

Just think: When we travel from Beach to Waukeen's Rest ... it take us X logn rests = days.
Even if you would make it within one ... then you can travel the same distance back ... but the fun part is that you can travel that distance as many times as you want and it would STILL take you just one day! As long as you dont rest.

Travel back and forth enough times without rest and when you try to calculate your travel speed you can not just reach but extend speed of light.

So our only way to measure here are long rests ...
And while we (read as: player) practicaly have control over them, we still should keep in mind that time should flow ... so even if we "rush" there is no way we would actualy outrun that.
Unless we "step outside the game".

When I played it (the very first available iteration) I felt like long rest = defeat (and if I find myself in a situation when I have to long rest I should just load a save and try better). Even one long rest, yes.

I think many players will feel similar if the game doesn't clearly (and early!) state through some wise character that you can explore the map however you want.
Or just I dunno make the entire party captured and just chill in a cellar for a couple of days so then you would have your initial "long rests" and understanding that you're not turning into a mindflayer.

Originally Posted by Niara

because no actual person in real life, finding themselves in this situation would simply "Trust" that they were not going to be transformed body and soul by this thing that annihilates a person's entire existence, just because ours isn't behaving in the traditional way exactly.

Reminds me of Pascal's wager, except in this case hell is ceremorphosis.

The odds of ceremorphosis go down with every hour of delay, but the consequences are so bad that it would make no sense to bet on everything turning out fine.

Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD

And since only first few hours is essential, even tho we cannot pinpoint the exact time when it would happen, what is certain is that it WOULD happen ... and since its not happening, it can mean only one thing.

In the spirit of friendly argument, there's no in-game empirical evidence that delayed ceremorphosis "can mean only one thing". If a living creature isn't acting as expected, keep an eye on it. Erratic behaviour in the wild is rarely a good thing. Erratic behaviour in a living thing inside your brain shouldn't reassure you.

Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD

Originally Posted by Niara

We must come out of the game space and say: "Okay, we can see that the tadpole isn't actually on a time limit and we're safe from that, so we can explore." - and we must step out of game to do that

Must we tho?

(â€¦)

So basicaly once we lay down for the first night sleep ... IF we are still aware of oureself ... we *know* (without stepping out of our character) that our Ceremorphosis is alterned and time is not as precious as it would be with regular thing.
Also we can presume that something eating our brain alive would be quite painfull proces.

You should read an entire post, as Niara answers to your question in the post:

Quote

because no actual person in real life, finding themselves in this situation would simply "Trust" that they were not going to be transformed body and soul by this thing that annihilates a person's entire existence, just because ours isn't behaving in the traditional way exactly.

From my perspective the problem is enhanced by most of he content in act1 being irrelevant to the player character - very early on only Helsin is established as a credible solution. Rest is just faffing doing side adventures - which is counter intuitive if one has a potential ticking bomb in their noggins. Itâ€™s not even us being good guys and putting well-being of others ahead of our own. Us not making tadpoles our priority is bad news for everyone around us.

Even if this side content comes together narratively in later chapters, at this point in their story engaging it comes from meta knowledge (I know it is a game, and I know there is no timer, so there is no need to hurry). It is a common problem in games that offer plenty of side content and try to have an urgent film-like plot (BG2 had a similar issue) but BG3 feels to me much worse then any game I played before in that regard.

Here is an idea - what if we didnâ€™t know we had tadpole implanted in our head (like so many other True Souls)? We would know something is off, would be experiencing side effects (generally positive, if not a bit weird), but wouldnâ€™t know what it is. And then it would be revealed what it is through examination by one of the gameâ€™s medics - Helsin, Auntie or the Priest. Wouldnâ€™t that work much better? Presumably by the time we learn that we have tadpole we would be on our way to the tower and presumably learning more about their nature.

Originally Posted by Alexlotr

When I played it (the very first available iteration) I felt like long rest = defeat (and if I find myself in a situation when I have to long rest I should just load a save and try better). Even one long rest, yes.

I think many players will feel similar if the game doesn't clearly (and early!) state through some wise character that you can explore the map however you want.
Or just I dunno make the entire party captured and just chill in a cellar for a couple of days so then you would have your initial "long rests" and understanding that you're not turning into a mindflayer.

In patches they expanded Nettieâ€™s and Halsinâ€™s dialogue to make it more clear Tav wasnâ€™t going to change right away.

For myself in video games I am used to urgent main quests that arenâ€™t urgent to do first, so I never thought Tav would turn into a mindflayer if not cured within a couple hours.

Yes there are some inconsistencies with the tadpole story.

I see this thread has become about the 'reason to adventure' in the first act, being counter to the 'reason to explore' There have been a few threads about this before...have some!

I believe they added a few pieces of dialogue here and there, to make it more clear to you (the player) that you don't have to take the tadpole seriously. Shadowheart, for instance, will bring it up the first time you take a long rest (if nothing else overrides it), but it still comes across as a more gamey way of playing, but that might be more that I found the race against the clock scenario, much more compelling than the mystery brainbox one.

Originally Posted by Icelyn

In patches they expanded Nettieâ€™s and Halsinâ€™s dialogue to make it more clear Tav wasnâ€™t going to change right away.

In patch 8, Halsin told my party to slow down and enjoy life after we freed him. I don't know if it was because it only took two or three days or if it's because Tav hadn't bothered consulting Nettie or talking to Kahga. It felt like the developpers were talking to me directly, because Halsin doesn't have an in-game reason to say that...

Originally Posted by Icelyn

For myself in video games I am used to urgent main quests that arenâ€™t urgent to do first, so I never thought Tav would turn into a mindflayer if not cured within a couple hours.

Disco Elysium handled that quite well. Exasperated NPCs will ask you to please, for once, stay focused on the main mission. This lets the player know the main mission is important, but gives them an in-world reason to put it off : you're not exactly an exemplary cop.

Originally Posted by Flooter

Originally Posted by Icelyn

In patches they expanded Nettieâ€™s and Halsinâ€™s dialogue to make it more clear Tav wasnâ€™t going to change right away.

In patch 8, Halsin told my party to slow down and enjoy life after we freed him. I don't know if it was because it only took two or three days or if it's because Tav hadn't bothered consulting Nettie or talking to Kahga. It felt like the developpers were talking to me directly, because Halsin doesn't have an in-game reason to say that...

Halsin has your back!ðŸ»ðŸ»ðŸ»

Originally Posted by Flooter

In the spirit of friendly argument, there's no in-game empirical evidence that delayed ceremorphosis "can mean only one thing".

I believe there are ...
4 of them actualy ... and their names are: Dror Ragzlin, priestess Gut, Minthara and Nere.

I just didnt want to repeat it again, since i allready said it so many times.

But in short ...
I believe that IF your character presumes that that time is of the essence ...
Then meeting other True Souls should proove one of two things:
A) Your ceremorphosis is stopped.
B) Your ceremorphosis was slowed => they were tadpoled sooner => they should turn before you.

Either way, no you are, well not "fine" ... but also, not "in danger of life" kind of hurry.

Anyway, dont get me wrong here!

I never said that our characters should have mindset of "hah, it does nothing ... i shall deal with it in few centuries ... if i have time" ...
Even tho, in order to express my full opinion, i also believe that such character attitude is perfectly fine and should be possible ... after all, his name is Astarion.

What im saying is that in my perspective, our characters have more than enough reasons to chill out a bit ... instead of rushing so far that they they die of exhaustion at finish. :-/
But again, such behaviour is also prefectly fine and if you WANT to play character that will freak out and push yourself beyond the limit ... her name is Shadowheart.

The only part i dislike in this topic is that general "no person would ..." yes, they would ...

Originally Posted by Flooter

Erratic behaviour in the wild is rarely a good thing.

I wouldnt use that word ... what is so Erratic about its behaviour?

Maybe its language barier in work here, but isnt Erratic more about someting that do several things in random pattern, rather than about simply taking a few weeks long nap?

Anyway ...
It should eat your brain > it dont.
If that isnt good thing, i cant really imagine what is.

---

Originally Posted by Wormerine

You should read an entire post

Why people still get so confused about this even after two years i wonder ...

Once more then: I DO read whole posts ... my quotes only shows what i react to.
Comprende?

Now ... since you started this way:

Quote

because no actual person in real life, finding themselves in this situation would simply "Trust" that they were not going to be transformed body and soul by this thing that annihilates a person's entire existence, just because ours isn't behaving in the traditional way exactly.

If YOU would read entire post ...

You would find out that i reacted on this with quoting a Wiki ... (i will not quote it again)
That clearly states that within "few hours", "we" no longer exists ... so just the fact that "we" are still there to even wory about ceremorphosis is not matter of "trust", its a factual "proof" that this "thing" is not working for some reason.

Also, now when you mentioned it and i read this statement again (bcs i again read whole post, shocking huh?) ... i cant really agree with statement "isn't behaving in the traditional way exactly" ... i mean, feel free to corect me, but as far as i know, our tadpole in fact "isn't behaving at all" ... unless we provoke it.

Originally Posted by Wormerine

very early on only Helsin is established as a credible solution.

Is he?

Halsin's people, who desperately need him back, are telling you that you should risk your life for him, bcs finding and saving him is your best option.
Can you really say that you dont smell any sidemotives? O_o

Lae'zel, who desperately need get back to her people, is telling you that you should risk your life for her, bcs her people are your only hope ... but only if she will be present, without her you have no chance to get their help, but with her, its asured.
Can you really say that it isnt sound familiar?

Sazza, who desperately need you to save her ...
You get the idea, no? There is a patern!

I dont really remember a single character that would offer you help with your Brainbug problem without gaining somethign out of it.

Originally Posted by Wormerine

which is counter intuitive if one has a potential ticking bomb in their noggins

Can be ... yes.
But in general, no it isnt.

Depends on lots of things like how big is that bomb, if its even armed, how long it would be ticking, if you are even smart enough to realize danger you are in.
Dont throw away other scenarios as "unrealistic" just bcs *you* (and here i mean YOU not your character) would never even concider it ... if this would be universaly true, we wouldnt have Darwin Awards.

Originally Posted by Wormerine

Even if this side content comes together narratively in later chapters, at this point in their story engaging it comes from meta knowledge (I know it is a game, and I know there is no timer, so there is no need to hurry).

I allready presented few in game reasons ...
It certainly can, and in most cases probably will come from meta knowledge ... i agree ... but there are options, if you keep your mind, eyes and ears opened.

Originally Posted by Wormerine

Here is an idea - what if we didnâ€™t know we had tadpole implanted in our head (like so many other True Souls)?

Interesting idea ...
But wouldnt that require complete rework (or erase) of whole tutorial part and several starting conversations? O_o

Even if you would erase it whole and you would wake up on the beach, blessingly unaware of your condition ... why would anyone stick with you? ... why would you be looking for a healer? ... why would you risk your life in Goblin camp? etc. etc.

Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD

Now ... since you started this way:

Quote

because no actual person in real life, finding themselves in this situation would simply "Trust" that they were not going to be transformed body and soul by this thing that annihilates a person's entire existence, just because ours isn't behaving in the traditional way exactly.

If YOU would read entire post ...

You would find out that i reacted on this with quoting a Wiki ... (i will not quote it again)
That clearly states that within "few hours", "we" no longer exists ... so just the fact that "we" are still there to even wory about ceremorphosis is not matter of "trust", its a factual "proof" that this "thing" is not working for some reason.

You are not providing argument to Niara's line of thinking though. No one claimed that it is not clear that something is off. The fact that tadpoles didn't go off as expected doesn't mean it is safe. If you step on a landmine and it doesn't go off, it doesn't mean it is safe to carry around with you. Therefore:

Quote

because no actual person in real life, finding themselves in this situation would simply "Trust" that they were not going to be transformed body and soul by this thing that annihilates a person's entire existence, just because ours isn't behaving in the traditional way exactly.

Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD

Originally Posted by Wormerine

very early on only Helsin is established as a credible solution.

Is he?

I think so. He is a powerul druid, a leader of the local circle, and studied/studies tadpoled individuals before vanishing. Sounds like a good lead?

Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD

Lae'zel, who desperately need get back to her people, is telling you that you should risk your life for her, bcs her people are your only hope ...

Gith also seem like a possibility especially if one plays as Gith. As Mindflayers swarn enemies they could be equipped to combat mindflayers influence as she claims. That said, her being an aggressive alien, I wouldn't be slow to trust her people if roleplaying as any other race. Then of course you meet her "friends" and pursuing this avenue becomes clearly a bad idea. Friendly neighbourhood, tadpole studying elf druid seems like a safer bet (again, perhaps unless you play as Gith yourself).

Gobbo pristess. She is a gobbo to start with, and works for people who want us dead.

There is Auntie and comedic relief guy, but they are more accidental finds that intentional paths to pursue.

Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD

Originally Posted by Wormerine

which is counter intuitive if one has a potential ticking bomb in their noggins

Depends on lots of things like how big is that bomb, if its even armed, how long it would be ticking, if you are even smart enough to realize danger you are in.
Dont throw away other scenarios as "unrealistic" just bcs *you* (and here i mean YOU not your character) would never even concider it ... if this would be universaly true, we wouldnt have Darwin Awards.

Har, har, har. Don't switch arguments, Mr. Strawman. Just second ago you claimed that it is perfectly fine to assume that tadpole doesn't present an immediate danger. In addition, it is impossible to do low inteligence runs in BG3, so it is safe to assume that your character has at least a below average inteligence, like myself.

Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD

Originally Posted by Wormerine

Here is an idea - what if we didnâ€™t know we had tadpole implanted in our head (like so many other True Souls)?

Interesting idea ...
But wouldnt that require complete rework (or erase) of whole tutorial part and several starting conversations? O_o

Even if you would erase it whole and you would wake up on the beach, blessingly unaware of your condition ... why would anyone stick with you? ... why would you be looking for a healer? ... why would you risk your life in Goblin camp? etc. etc.

I thought of it more as a theoretical excercise (akin to rewriting xxxxx film videos) then an actual suggestion, that said if Larian saw it and thought it would fix all their problem I don't think it would be as difficult to implement as you suggest.

The biggest obstacle is expensive CGI cinematics which would need to be cut or redone, to not include tadpole but other then some rewrites and rerecording would be enough. Perhaps it is still a lot. But maybe then Larian would write something more relatable then "tadpole this and tadpole that".

I think we can wake up as prisoners on Illithyd ship. We are also experiencing strange sideeffects, such as melding our minds with brain-dog and other prisoners and future companions. That something was done to us, is I think enough of a reason to stick together and find out what happened. The fact that we have a tadpole doesn't really change much, I don't think. Finding a healer or someone with magical knowledge would be a priority still. Laez could still want to search for the Creche - something was done to her by Illythids after all.

Then the encounter with dying true soul could be the indicator that we might have a tadpole as well, which could even be dismissed by some companions as we have been feeling better then ever afterall. And by time the diagnosis was made we would be pretty deep into act1, making moonlight tower a more direct objective.

But as I said a thought excerciese more then anything. Difficult to say if and what it would do to the story without knowing more.

Ragzlin, Gut, Minthara etc: These are not reliable evidence sources for us being 'safe' enough to take our time; our tadpoles are clearly not the same a theirs, we know we have them, they don't - they all believe that theirs is a literal god talking to them. Their tadpoles leave their brains when they die, ours do not - any reason you give for this is You Making An Assumption; it might be the case, and it might not be - you don't know.. There's something different between theirs and ours - would you wager the entirety of your life and your immortal continuance of being thereafter (which in this universe you know that you have, incidentally, unlike ours) on simply "Assuming" that ours isn't going to destroy us or do something else irreversible to us, just because it seems like theirs haven't?

Meeting the true souls does *Nothing* to allay our own concerns, because they are not the same as us. We also don't know where they got their tadpoles, or how, or why - they certainly weren't on the ship with us, after all. It tells us literally nothing about ourselves, and our situation, only theirs.

There is nothing here to tell us, with ANY kind of reliable certainty, that we are not in life-threatening danger.

Quote

It should eat your brain > it dont.
If that isnt good thing, i cant really imagine what is.

Yes you can, don't lie for the sake of your stance, it only undermines it. I'm sure you're not that lacking in imagination. As wormerine suggested, and it's more or less a very well fitting analogy:

You stepped on a land mine. It should explode, it didn't. This is NOT a good situation, and not good news. It is most definitely not something that you should relax about and feel content to ignore and assume you're in no immediate danger - and carry around in your backpack to show to friends - just because it didn't explode already. It should have exploded already, yes - and the parallell here is that it SHOULD have turned us while we were passed out on the beach, and 'we' should not have woken up at all (recall that it we were captured inthe afternoon, spent time onthe ship, had the ship crash duringhte night, but woke up othe beach in the morning - long enough that it should have destroyed our personality already.)

That we are still here is NOT 'factual proof' that it is not working - it proves only that it's not behaving as our lore books say it should. It is active and doing things though, and we don't know what, or why - the mental connection episodes, are one example, even without actively using the tadpole powers; even without them, too, it's clearly there, giving us that sensation that we cold do something, and we repeatedly are told about how terrible our characters are looking, and that we can occasionally feel it moving in our skull.

Where I disagree with Wormerine is on Halsin: Halsin may be a credible source to tell us that ours is not behaving in the traditional way, but he is not a sufficient information source, as it stands currently, to reassure and take the time pressure off us, in relation to our specific situation - only someone with direct personal knowledge of exactly what has been done to us, and our/or tadpoles - our specific situation - can provide that. Halsin has studied these altered tadpoles, but again, ours are not the same as the other absolutist ones he's encountered. Even then, his only information is that "it's not transforming you when it should - it may not, but it may, and I can't tell you when or why it might, just that it might... but it seems like it probably won't" That alone is not sufficient information to remove it from doing everything we can about it as our no-distractions top priority. If his information was that "You're aware of yours, and the others aren't, but the basic effects seem to be identical otherwise, and I can say that these ones don't transform their hosts on their own - they need some kind of trigger, though I don't yet know what." That would help the situation, though as suggested, removing our knowledge of the tadpole, in universe, would be another possibility.

If you need to presume that the character is ignorant, stupid or reckless (that all of them are, in fact - party leader problem) in order for your game to make in-universe sense, then your game design has failed.

Originally Posted by Niara

Where I disagree with Wormerine is on Halsin: Halsin may be a credible source to tell us that ours is not behaving in the traditional way, but he is not a sufficient information source, as it stands currently, to reassure and take the time pressure off us

Just to be pendantic, when I said

Quote

From my perspective the problem is enhanced by most of he content in act1 being irrelevant to the player character - very early on only Helsin is established as a credible solution.

I meant that I see finding Helsin as the only narratively reasonable objective to pursue, with other content being irrelevant to our PC or healing sources of questionable competency/goodwill. After he doesn't solve the problem, then it's straight off to moonlight tower. Even once we learn that our tadpole is magically suspended, it doesn't mean that force that suspends it is benevolent or will last for forseeable future.

After some thoughts i decided to add spoiler tags, since it get quite long.

Wormerine part:

---

Niara part:

//Edit:

Originally Posted by Wormerine

I meant that I see finding Helsin as the only narratively reasonable objective to pursue

And that is perfectly fine ... as long as you keep it as the only reasonable way for yourself.

But there are other characters, with different perspectives and priorities ...
Sadly, many people around here is unable to look beyond what *they* would do.

The problem with the tadpole is that they cant make it a timed thing.

You rest 20 times in act1 and in act3 you have no time? Regame 40hours?
You rest 2000 times in act1 looking for your "hidden" timer and restart ?

The only possible way is maybe a hidden Questcounter and after Number X you are 1 level above someone Rush the game and you have malus or something to normalize the Player strength but this time its a tadpole "effect".
But in general a "timed" thing without near future effect is a bad developer choice.

Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD

Originally Posted by Wormerine

If you step on a landmine and it doesn't go off, it doesn't mean it is safe to carry around with you. Therefore:

Quote

because no actual person in real life...

Funny you mentioned this example ... let me tell you a short story:

All I can say is that I find this person behaviour incredibly irresposible. That said, if a game expected me to mimic such behaviour in a roleplaying game I would still find it jarring. It's fine as an option, but for a main narrative driving force of the adventure I still see it as a poor choice.

Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD

Originally Posted by Wormerine

I think so. He is a powerul druid, a leader of the local circle, and studied/studies tadpoled individuals before vanishing. Sounds like a good lead?

You mean his followers claims that he is a powefull druid ... right?
> So powerfull so he was captured by bunch of goblins. O_o

I must say, it is difficult for me to distinguish what is an intentional story telling and what are just inconsistencies. Personally I have been treating the representation of high power characters and low level weaklings as just poor intertwining of narrative and gameplay then anything intentional, same as I don't think there is necessarily a difference between our tadpole and True souls tadpole, simply because ours doesn't leave the body when we die - I think it is just "plot armor".

Still he seems to command respect and power over the grove, which either speaks to his competence of family connection (if such thing exists in whimsical world of D&D). Either way it is still as good as it gets in the current area.

Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD

No, im sorry i just cant understand how is it possble that everyone are so much willing to ignore all red flags in Druid Grove. O_o
Well actualy i do ... its metaknowledge ... we know that Githyanki are Evil, so we aproach them as Evil ... we know Druids are Neutral, so we are fine around them ...

Here is the rub - it's not metaknowledge. It's the nature of the world. Good, Neutral, Evil aren't philosophical abstacts in D&D. Goblins, Githyanki they ARE evil, Druids ARE neutral - and that is knowledge a person living in this world will hold. It's not even a question "do you think Gobbos can be trusted", it is "is it smart to look for help among creatures who are EVIL, controled by a misterious being who instructed it's underlings to find and kill you". If Larian wants evil path to have some credibility it needs to be very tempting. That's also a reason why Astarion dies in most of my playthroughs - he is an evil monster, and I don't have a good reason not to kill him. Keeping him around is nothing more then a liability.

Though I am a hypocryte right now. I always struggled to play straight evil characters in BG1&2 and early Bioware RPGs, and BG3 is no different. The issue is, I think, that unlike many other RPGs I can't really come up with my own motivation. Tadpole is too overwhelming of a driving force - nothing else matters unless you get rid of it. The game is also completely unconcerned about what my character might want to do. And as Niara pointed out in the world with afterlife, and resurection tapole is one of the most horrific threats that you could carry. That's honestly not something I even considered before. Getting killed by Helsin's apprentice it is really not a biggie - expensive setback (not in BG3 but in 5e ruleset, and especially not a biggie if we take BG3 cost of resurection literally), but it is just a setback.

Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD

Originally Posted by Wormerine

I meant that I see finding Helsin as the only narratively reasonable objective to pursue

And that is perfectly fine ... as long as you keep it as the only reasonable way for yourself.

But there are other characters, with different perspectives and priorities ...
Sadly, many people around here is unable to look beyond what *they* would do.

I think that part of the problem is that the story kind of breaks down if you try and take the tadpole as a serious, immintent threat. And the game does start by presenting the tadpole as an imminent threat. And if it's valid to look at the kernels of evidence suggesting that it isn't and latch onto that, then it's equally valid to misunderstand the evidence or just not trust it (I did both in my first playthrough). But if the player/character goes the latter route, what happens? It's not actually an interesting choice. You only lose out if you take the initial threat presented by the game seriously. From my perspective, all the evidence of something strange with the tadpole is just confusing and adding the mystery of what's going on with it, which only further makes me nervous of it and want it gone, it doesn't make me feel reassured. But if you try and act from that perspective, you just get less of everything. Less loot, less xp, less companion interaction, less story. So in order to enjoy what the game has to offer, I have to play in a way that I find narratively unsatisfying. Because I don't like playing characters who are dumb or smug or reckless, it feels unnatural and uncomfortable, like wearing clothes that are too small. And the game isn't giving me enough to really play a character that isn't like that. It's all just disparate hints that the tadpole is different in some way.

And I will also keep harping on this; it's an unsatisfying way to resolve the tadpole threat that we're presented with at the start of the game, because it doesn't resolve it. We as players are just expected to ignore the really urgent tadpole threat that the game presents right at the beginning of the game. The game pretty much starts with us seeing the tadpole get implanted in us from first person perspective. It's a visceral, horrific scene, then as soon as we meet our first companion she's telling us about what it will do to us, and she tells us again in even more gruesome detail later. The game very effectively establishes the tadpole and threat of transformation as the main threat, and finding a healer as the main goal of the game, at least at this point. At the same time it also gives us hints to undermine that urgency and rewards us for doing stuff that doesn't present an immediate solution to the problem. Like the whole Aunt Nettie plotline. That starts with two random dudes accosting an old lady. Even playing a good character who thinks they can afford to spend a few minutes stopping that, what reason do I have to pursue that plotline further? At best she seems like maybe a wizard or something who's living in a cottage. In my first playthrough my character just moved on right past it because hey, the situation was resolved, nothing more for me to look into, and I've got pressing things and actual leads to follow up on. And what's worse is that pursuing that quest actually gives you important information about the tadpole (that's gated behind a major debuff. Yes I am still very bitter about that).

If Larian wants us to take it slow, then they shouldn't have started the game so urgently. Instead they give us a big, scary ticking clock that they then have to walk back. And they're doing at best a mediocre job of that.

To Ragnarok, you've said before you find it easier to manage when I break things into parts with direct reference, like you do - so I'll do this, for your benefit. (maybe you could return the favour one day? ^.^)
I do want to be clear, I'm not trying to be abrasive or to attack you personally, and this is written in the spirit of constructive debate; none of what I say here is directed at you, the person, or intended to imply as much - it's about the theoretical characters we're discussing, not the people behind them.

Spoilered for being, in actually, quite off topic by this point.

==

To bring it back to the main topic, if the introduction were set up differently, the juxtaposition of the narrative need for haste, and the design need to breadth of explorations and pacing could be resolved smoothly without making sweeping changes to the contents of Act 1 itself... but it would require Larian to do something different with their intro, rather than copy-paste-painting D:OS2's intro ^.^

Originally Posted by Niara

Quote

If you kill Astarion permanently, it leaves ... if you kill Lae'zel permanently, it leaves ... if you kill Shadowheart permanently, it leaves ... there are cutscenes for each and every one of them.

Ah, well, that's new to me, and I've not seen that.

Thatâ€™s interesting. I have never seen that happen either. May I inquire what does it take to kill a companion permanently? The closest I got was stabbing Astarion with a pole and his body would just lie in the camp till the end of time. I assumed it is impossible to permanently kill a companion. Is it tied to sequences when they are not accepted into the party?

If they made more clear, early on, the connection between the tadpole and Moonrise Towers, then the connections between Halsin, and the Goblins to our main quest might be better realized. Maybe if we learned that the Nautiloid was headed there before being attacked, we'd have a better reason to quest for someone who knows more about it.

Right now, piecing it together is an unintended outcome of getting involved with the local trouble. Which as we've talked about, is the logical paradox of wanting us to put the locals ahead of our impending doom.

I have to wonder how the story will seem to the majority of players who only play through the story once. Most people here have played through every scene multiple times, have read a ton about what is going on, watched other videos, playthroughs, datamined everything, etc. But what of those who experience the story for the first time as their only time?

I've had a playthrough where I didn't activate really any of the story cutscenes and the whole time it felt like I was just randomly getting involved in some unrelated conflict, just because. No dreamer, no devil coming to camp, I didn't recruit SH so the box wasn't a thing, etc. If that had been my only time playing through that section I can't imagine how terrible the story would seem.

I really hope they get better at telling the story and making it a bit more obvious what the connections are, because right now, it feels like a coop themepark for most people, and a deep engaging rpg for very, VERY few. Hell, maybe that's what Larian is going for.

Let me remind everyone that in the full game, you ARE free to pursue whatever path would lead the fastest to getting rid of the pole. You can go after the creche, or anything else, but you seem to be hitting a roadblock everywhere. So whether or not you will feel the urgency or not, based on your roleplay of intelligence or perceived threat, you can't do anything more than what you're doing. Theoritically we don't know if you can pursue this until you find out from credible source that you are not in imminent danger, and then come back to do the sidequests.

The game lets you assume at first you are in imminent danger, but as time passes, it becomes even more hinted that the danger is not imminent.

I agree, and i think that in the final release we should be presented with actual credible source for this soon enough, so we can explain swashbuckling around better. In the end however, the same thing happened later in the game in BG2. You had your soul taken from you, and told you where going to die, but not when. You still could do whateeeeeever else you wanted from side quests, and leave claiming it back until the very end, with the possibility also of becoming the Slayer without able to control it and killing everyone. It's a narrative form of hinting you the though of impending doom that will happen if you don't deal with it, but not telling you to do it in a timed fashion. Like you learn of a gang setting an ambush, and the gang is there WHEN you decide to enter the alley. It happens in a lot of games, and when Owlcat did something different, no one liked it and they had to let you have like, 90 days, which was more than you would ever even need.

It's a lore-gameplay segregation that will inevitably happen.

Also, i am really interested in knowing how all these level 1 super characters know SO much about what ceremorphosis even is, barring Lae'zel. The knowledge about mind flayers and how they reproduce, is not the most mundane, and the only one that would actually know much about it, is someone who has read actual lore of it, or even seen it. A level 1 gith would know so much about it? Ok let's assume she would know something. Why didn't they do it while you were unconscious? You wouldn't even know what's happening. It always irked me that level 1 chars know everything there is to know, and they didn't even need to be educated by someone, except your main character of course. They have to be the idiot every time.

Still, supposedly, a tadpole should take you under its control within hours, and in 1 week you transform.

I think my issue here is that the gameplay and story segregation has the potential to totally unravel the game. Because of how camp scenes work, if you take the imediate threat seriously and act upon it, then just like Boblawblah described, you'll end up missing swaths of story because you're resting as little as possible, which will make the game demonstrably worse. The game starts by yelling "you're in urgent danger" and then starts to whisper "not really though" and if you don't properly process those whispers, then you're just gonna have an inferior time.

Yeah we'll have to see how that works out in the released game, we might see something different all together.

Part of the reason for my Long Rest Poll was to get at that Boblawblah, because I knew from my first playthrough I had done everything in my power to take as few long rests as possible, I blew through who knows how many flags, and really messed with the pacing of the story. Based on that, not necessarily helpful, poll, a large portion of people on their first playthrough will do the same. I think Larian, has been adding stuff to signpost for players that the narrative thrust of the prologue doesn't need to dictate their playthrough of the first area, whether or not it's enough I can't say. For instance, Shadowheart's dialogue about whether or not resting is a good idea, in order to get that scene you already have to be comfortable enough to take a rest, and take one early enough on that the trigger isn't overridden by something else. I didn't know that scene existed until someone mentioned it here, who knows how long into the EA, and that was already after I stopped trying to put off resting.

As for whether or not the story will loop us back to the grove-goblin quest after following leads elsewhere, is taking for granted a lot about how the game maps will work. I'm not sure we'll ever return to the EA map after this act concludes, and if we do, I'm not sure any of the quests will still be there. It's possible after going to the creche we'll be put back on Halsin's trail, but I think it's more likely we'll just be put onto the Moonrise path. Also, ticking clocks don't need to actually follow through for them to set the pace of your adventure, we're talking about a dissonance between character and player motivation, good storytelling should make it so our characters aren't acting illogically just because the person playing them knows they're just in a silly video game. It's a separate conversation but I wish video games did play with time and sequences more, considering unlike most mediums, it can actually do interesting things with them.

And to be fair based on the first conversation with Lae'zel, most Tavs don't seem to know what ceremorphosis is, neither do Astarion and I think Wyll; Gale, and even SH, I can believe it of.

Originally Posted by Wormerine

All I can say is that I find this person behaviour incredibly irresposible.

No arguments here ...

But that was not a point, was it?
The question was if it is "possible" ... and that it certainly is!

Originally Posted by Wormerine

I would still find it jarring. It's fine as an option, but for a main narrative driving force of the adventure I still see it as a poor choice.

Dunno ... it seems like an option to me. O_o
You can concider the tadpole as dangerous as it please you ... and rush as much as it please you ...

Larian simply didnt set everything in stone and leave us enough room for interpretation.
As far as im concerned, its a good thing.

Originally Posted by Wormerine

same as I don't think there is necessarily a difference between our tadpole and True souls tadpole, simply because ours doesn't leave the body when we die - I think it is just "plot armor".

Agreed. (and that spoiler part also seemed quite likely ... but i hope it will go different route)

Originally Posted by Wormerine

Still he seems to command respect and power over the grove, which either speaks to his competence of family connection (if such thing exists in whimsical world of D&D). Either way it is still as good as it gets in the current area.

There is old saying: In the land of blind, one eyed is the King.

Originally Posted by Wormerine

It's the nature of the world. Good, Neutral, Evil aren't philosophical abstacts in D&D.

Im affraid, they are ... in context of sentient beings with free will ...
But we allready discused this in another topic. O_o

Yes, there are "good" or "evil" beings who have no choice in their behaviour, bcs its part of them ... and yes there are "good" or "evil" supernatural forces that influences mortal behaviour ...
But beyond that?
For people who are physicaly able to do both good and evil deeds, those therms are just as philosophical abstracts as they are for you and me, unless there is some supernatural force included.

It other words: Githyanki are capable of being Good ... it would be rare sight, as rare as meeting friendly mind flayer ... but hey, we met friendly mind flayer.

Originally Posted by Wormerine

Goblins, Githyanki they ARE evil, Druids ARE neutral - and that is knowledge a person living in this world will hold.

I would argue that Githyanki are actualy "unknown" to most people, since they are quite rare sight.

Also i would certainly argue that Druids hates aberrations ... and are openly hostile to anything unnatural.
As is that little thing inside our heads.

So if we really wish to play this on safe bet ... are Druids still your first choice? Even after everything you seen in the Grove? O_o
Well i mean, okey why not ... but i wouldnt pretend that i understand that.

Originally Posted by Wormerine

"is it smart to look for help among creatures who are EVIL, controled by a misterious being who instructed it's underlings to find and kill you".

The problem with this questions is that you are looking at Evil path, through Good sights.

Did we indeed "look for help" among Goblins?
I dunno how about your characters, but i can say with absolute certainity, that mine didnt ... i allways come to the Goblin camp seeking for the way they are protecting themselves from the tadpole ... ready and willing to stab them in the back once they get that.

Originally Posted by Wormerine

If Larian wants evil path to have some credibility it needs to be very tempting.

Nope ... full disagree here.
I like the evil path as it is, all temptation i need is there for people who notice it, and those who dont ... well, they wouldnt take it anyway.

The problem i have with temption in games is that many people dont really think about their decisions ... just see reward and go there ... dont care about what it means. :-/

Originally Posted by Wormerine

I can't really come up with my own motivation. Tadpole is too overwhelming of a driving force - nothing else matters unless you get rid of it.

I for one think this is perfectly valid approach ...
Just not the only one.

Originally Posted by Wormerine

The game is also completely unconcerned about what my character might want to do.

I cant really imagine how would the game even recognize it ...
Doesnt really matter what you want, important is what you do.

Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD

Originally Posted by Wormerine

The game is also completely unconcerned about what my character might want to do.

I cant really imagine how would the game even recognize it ...
Doesnt really matter what you want, important is what you do.

Give our PC an opportunity to express their viewpoints through dialogue choices. A wonderful example of it I would point to the opening of PoE1, where we get to further define our character background and reason to moving to Dyrwood - some of it even gets reactivity down the line. Even in simpler ways - no one really asks about our PCs viewpoint. The most I can think of is Shadowheart asking for your take on Rafael after the conversation, but it is more of a test then an opportunity to flesh out your character.

I think that's one of the reason why BG3 protagonist feels like such a nothing - but then again, there is little to discuss in BG3. Game's story and conflict so far is untainted by any philosophical or moral dilemma.

Edit. @Rag, could you please let me know how one kills companion permanently as to see the tadpole leaving? I want to try it out in my next playthrough.

Edit2. I canâ€™t find anything about the above online. You didnâ€™t make shit up, did you Rag? That would be a new low even for you

Originally Posted by Gray Ghost

And if it's valid to look at the kernels of evidence suggesting that it isn't and latch onto that, then it's equally valid to misunderstand the evidence or just not trust it

And vice versa.
100%, exactly my point.

Originally Posted by Gray Ghost

So in order to enjoy what the game has to offer, I have to play in a way that I find narratively unsatisfying. Because I don't like playing characters who are dumb or smug or reckless

Well those were obviously just examples i picked bcs they are easy ... i see no reason to spend hours and hours trying to create some supercomplex character that could go this path, since people would still just say they dont like something about them.

The point was ... you create your characters ... you want them to do *X* ... then you find out some way for them to do it.

And if you dont ... well, i gues then i asume this kind of play was not ment for you. :-/
It sucks i get it, but thats just how it is ...
If you complain about being hungry and someone offers you an apple, dont complain that you wanted hotdog ... either you are hungry and therefore eat an apple, or you are not really. :-/

I just dont like when people claim there is no valid option ... thats simply not true, there is many perfectly valid options, they just dont like them ... but that dont erase their existence.

Originally Posted by Gray Ghost

The game very effectively establishes the tadpole and threat of transformation as the main threat, and finding a healer as the main goal of the game, at least at this point. At the same time it also gives us hints to undermine that urgency

And you dont like it?
I quite honestly do ... a lot ... nothing is certain, you can be as confused or dedicated as you want and its all perfectly valid.
Thats why i said to Niara that we all are making asumptions.

Originally Posted by Gray Ghost

Like the whole Aunt Nettie plotline. That starts with two random dudes accosting an old lady.

*Ethel.

Nettie is that Dwarf Druid ... Halsin's apprentice.

Anyway that questline actualy starts in the Grove, where she sells her "lotions and potions" ... you can tell her after some dialogue that you have tadpole, and she offers you her help ... if you accept, she invites you to her home in the forest where she went to "prepare things".

Meeting her and those two guys are basicaly middle of that quest.

Originally Posted by Gray Ghost

If Larian wants us to take it slow, then they shouldn't have started the game so urgently. Instead they give us a big, scary ticking clock that they then have to walk back. And they're doing at best a mediocre job of that.

I dont really think they do ...
I mean, i obvously dont see into head of Larian writers, but concidering everything we have ... it seems to me like Larian dont really want to push us to anything ... they offer us options and let us play however we want.

Same model you can see with Long Rests ... it could be much more restrictive, easily ... but instead they decided to let us pick when and where we want to rest.

Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD

Originally Posted by Gray Ghost

And if it's valid to look at the kernels of evidence suggesting that it isn't and latch onto that, then it's equally valid to misunderstand the evidence or just not trust it

And vice versa.
100%, exactly my point.

My point here is that I don't think that within the game, misunderstanding the evidence we've given really is a valid, accounted for way to play. I'll go into way down below.

Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD

Originally Posted by Gray Ghost

So in order to enjoy what the game has to offer, I have to play in a way that I find narratively unsatisfying. Because I don't like playing characters who are dumb or smug or reckless

Well those were obviously just examples i picked bcs they are easy ... i see no reason to spend hours and hours trying to create some supercomplex character that could go this path, since people would still just say they dont like something about them.

The point was ... you create your characters ... you want them to do *X* ... then you find out some way for them to do it.

And if you dont ... well, i gues then i asume this kind of play was not ment for you. :-/
It sucks i get it, but thats just how it is ...
If you complain about being hungry and someone offers you an apple, dont complain that you wanted hotdog ... either you are hungry and therefore eat an apple, or you are not really. :-/

I just dont like when people claim there is no valid option ... thats simply not true, there is many perfectly valid options, they just dont like them ... but that dont erase their existence.

I have played lots of crpgs (not most of them, but a lot, especially newer ones) and have never run into this issue in those. In Pillars of Eternity, I had no trouble playing as a depressed monk in self-imposed exile as punishment for crimes she committed in an effort to liberate her citystate from tyrannical rule. I even wrote in-character journal entries for her where she reflected on the events of the game while also considering her past and how that colored her. I was even able to give her an arc of eventually rising above her past trauma, forgiving herself, and regaining her sense of purpose. That was my second playthrough. In my first, before I understood the full breadth of the game, I played a scholar who over the course of her game comes to realize the dark corners of the world and by the end of the story establishes herself as a spymaster to take care of her new home. In WotR I played as a tiefling who overcomes her anger and the trauma of past oppression to become a literal angel and prevent others from suffering as she did. But in Baldurs Gate 3 I can't find a satisfying way to play as a character who takes the tadpole threat seriously. Please, give me the complex character path that allows me to engage with the story and not miss out on companion interaction, story stuff and all the things that make a game like this interesting without also playing a dumb, or smug, or reckless character. I am inviting you to, because I clearly need guidance and I don't like disliking things. I paid for this game, I want to enjoy it.

Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD

Originally Posted by Gray Ghost

The game very effectively establishes the tadpole and threat of transformation as the main threat, and finding a healer as the main goal of the game, at least at this point. At the same time it also gives us hints to undermine that urgency

And you dont like it?
I quite honestly do ... a lot ... nothing is certain, you can be as confused or dedicated as you want and its all perfectly valid.
Thats why i said to Niara that we all are making asumptions.

Again, I don't think that playing a character dedicated to the tadpole before anything else is truly a valid, supported idea. Again, I'll get to it below.

Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD

Originally Posted by Gray Ghost

Like the whole Aunt Nettie plotline. That starts with two random dudes accosting an old lady.

*Ethel.

Nettie is that Dwarf Druid ... Halsin's apprentice.

Anyway that questline actualy starts in the Grove, where she sells her "lotions and potions" ... you can tell her after some dialogue that you have tadpole, and she offers you her help ... if you accept, she invites you to her home in the forest where she went to "prepare things".

Meeting her and those two guys are basicaly middle of that quest.

Thanks for clearing that up actually. I feel like I've heard Aunt Nettie elsewhere, I'm probbably gonna be wrackig my brain on that for a while.

Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD

Originally Posted by Gray Ghost

If Larian wants us to take it slow, then they shouldn't have started the game so urgently. Instead they give us a big, scary ticking clock that they then have to walk back. And they're doing at best a mediocre job of that.

I dont really think they do ...
I mean, i obvously dont see into head of Larian writers, but concidering everything we have ... it seems to me like Larian dont really want to push us to anything ... they offer us options and let us play however we want.

Same model you can see with Long Rests ... it could be much more restrictive, easily ... but instead they decided to let us pick when and where we want to rest.

This is where I get into "I don't think rushing along is actually a valid way that Larian wants us play" stuff that I'd been hinting at above. Larian clearly wants to push us to rest less, and the proof of that is one glaring thing; the party banter system. If we want to engage with our party, we HAVE to take long rests and ignore the threat of the tadpole. Otherwise we are simply locking ourselves out of that content. And if we miss it in this part of the game, then based on how other games work (which is a valid metric to measure with because this is a part of a pre-existing genre and medium with its own conventions and tropes, and I don't think Larian has given us a reason to give them the benefit of the doubt that they're trying to do something super unique) we're likely gonna not see those plotlines develop in later acts.

Companion interaction is a big part of a crpg like this, and ideally you're gonna want players to want to spend time with those characters. They could have not tied companion scenes and long rests the way they have, but they did. It's a choice they made, and they made it for a reason. As a result, if you initially take the urgency of the tadpole seriously, you miss out on scenes that should on paper be things you want to see. Ultimately, where you see Larian trying to give players freedom, I just see bad writing. And Larian has given me know reason to think better of them and give them the benefit of the doubt. In fact they've provided several other instances of bad writing that make me more inclined to include this under that umbrella. To name a few; their failure to provide a breadth of dialogue options for our characters, something you've complained about several times; the fact that our created character is typically treated as just a rube for other characters to show off their characterization against; the seeming fact they don't seem to care about world building or providing the players with context; their permutation madness to try and make the mystery box work; and Astarion's bite scene if you let him drink too long and actually drain you. All instances of bad writing that leave me unwilling to give them grace on this issue.

Edited to fix quotes

I'm so confused, are gray ghost and rag the same person?

No, I just messed up the quoting. Thanks for pointing that out, I'm gonna fix that up.

Originally Posted by Gray Ghost

Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD

Originally Posted by Gray Ghost

If Larian wants us to take it slow, then they shouldn't have started the game so urgently. Instead they give us a big, scary ticking clock that they then have to walk back. And they're doing at best a mediocre job of that.

I dont really think they do ...
I mean, i obvously dont see into head of Larian writers, but concidering everything we have ... it seems to me like Larian dont really want to push us to anything ... they offer us options and let us play however we want.

Same model you can see with Long Rests ... it could be much more restrictive, easily ... but instead they decided to let us pick when and where we want to rest.

This is where I get into "I don't think rushing along is actually a valid way that Larian wants us play" stuff that I'd been hinting at above. Larian clearly wants to push us to rest less, and the proof of that is one glaring thing; the party banter system. If we want to engage with our party, we HAVE to take long rests and ignore the threat of the tadpole. Otherwise we are simply locking ourselves out of that content. And if we miss it in this part of the game, then based on how other games work (which is a valid metric to measure with because this is a part of a pre-existing genre and medium with its own conventions and tropes, and I don't think Larian has given us a reason to give them the benefit of the doubt that they're trying to do something super unique) we're likely gonna not see those plotlines develop in later acts.

Companion interaction is a big part of a crpg like this, and ideally you're gonna want players to want to spend time with those characters. They could have not tied companion scenes and long rests the way they have, but they did. It's a choice they made, and they made it for a reason. As a result, if you initially take the urgency of the tadpole seriously, you miss out on scenes that should on paper be things you want to see. Ultimately, where you see Larian trying to give players freedom, I just see bad writing. And Larian has given me know reason to think better of them and give them the benefit of the doubt. In fact they've provided several other instances of bad writing that make me more inclined to include this under that umbrella. To name a few; their failure to provide a breadth of dialogue options for our characters, something you've complained about several times; the fact that our created character is typically treated as just a rube for other characters to show off their characterization against; the seeming fact they don't seem to care about world building or providing the players with context; their permutation madness to try and make the mystery box work; and Astarion's bite scene if you let him drink too long and actually drain you. All instances of bad writing that leave me unwilling to give them grace on this issue.

Edited to fix quotes

I have to agree with most of what Gray Ghost said here. There is a very real disconnect between the main personal plotline, the world plots/building and the game's mechanics.

Our intro is brutal and even if most people aren't going to know much about what just happened to us, that tadpole is certainly a big deal. The intro on the ship piles it on further with the pod scene, The change can be held off and remotely triggered...fantastic...do they need the pod...who knows. Before we leave the ship and actually start on the beach we know our tadpoles are not normal and hypothetically could trigger the change at any time. Nothing anyone can tell us so far in Act 1 is really new. Yes it is in stasis of some kind...we knew that when we woke up not mindflayers and didn't immediately change.

But to fully experience the game you really should take the time to explore everywhere. You know there is some kind of time limit on your tadpole issue, but time doesn't really exist in the game world(nearly everything/anything will wait for you) and is also endless cause you can and should be resting repeatedly for your companions.

@Gray Ghost I must ask however what is wrong with Astarion's bite scene?

The bite scene isn't related to the tadpole, but it's a really bizarre scene that can unfold. After a couple long rests and advances in story, you can have a scene where Astarion will try to feed on you in the night, revealing that he's a vampire. You can let him feed on you willingly at that point. If you stop him at the first opportunity, it's all fine. If you don't and try to stop him at the second opportunity, he'll drain you dry and kill you. However after that, the game keeps going and you can have another party member revive your character. If you do, then you can get a conversation with Astarion actually addressing that. And he is just a complete asshole, deflecting any sort of responsibility and basically just being like "well you're alive now, what's your problem?" And I don't thnk it works on any level.

Firstly, I don't think we should have the option of reviving our main character after it, it should be a non-standard game over where we have to reload. Secondly, if the point of the scene is to show Astarion in a more sympathetic light, then having him be an asshole after he KILLS us makes that fail. But cruically, if the point is actually to show him as a manipulator who is playingon our emotions to get what he wants, then having him be an asshole to us ALSO makes the scene fail at doing that, because it makes him seem like a stupid, petulant child. A manipulator would try and cover himself, try and say that he's sorry and that he truly could not control himself and it was out of his hands. And they would probably bolt as soon as they realize they can't talk themselves out of the situation. Astarion just sticks around and thinks we're gonna be fine with it, and the game kinda makes us be okay with it. And thirdly, the other party members should want to kill him for knowing that he's willing to kill members of the group. Lae'zel should be out to kill him right away, no questions asked.

Originally Posted by Niara

To Ragnarok, you've said before you find it easier to manage when I break things into parts with direct reference, like you do - so I'll do this, for your benefit. (maybe you could return the favour one day? ^.^)

Allready did in the past ...
Shame you forgot.

Originally Posted by Niara

spirit of constructive debate;

We have clearly different definitions of this ...
Since i see nothing constructive about repeating the same argument, sometimes even exactly same sentence, sometimes even twice in a row, to anything other side says. O_o

Just wanted to let you know that i actualy read the rest and wanted to respond on it, but because of the length of the post, I kept putting it off for later ...
Now i just wanted to clear my table ... but in the end, during writing the responce i noticed the circle, and decided not going to react on the rest any futher ...

I see there a way for my characters, i believe i described it well enough to be understandable ... if you refuse it, you refuse it ...
/shrug

---

Originally Posted by Wormerine

You didnâ€™t make shit up, did you Rag? That would be a new low even for you

You may notice that @ dont actualy tag anyone ... so i simply didnt know about your question.

This statement "even for you" tho makes me very sad ...
I must admit that i feel strong urge to say something like: Well, f* you too ...

I had some other coments, but they are no longer relevant after all.

Originally Posted by Wormerine

Edit. @Rag, could you please let me know how one kills companion permanently as to see the tadpole leaving?

Lae'zel - Dont recruit her to your party > when you reach Githyanki patrol, she will be there > they will kill her permanently > you can see tadpole.

Astarion - Pierce his heart with a stick during the scene when he try to drink you > that will kill him permanently > you can see tadpole.

Shadowheart - Refuse her joining your party in every single possible situation > she will attack you > you will kill her permanently > you can see tadpole. (This particular scene might be cut out now, last time i managed this was before Larian added scene where she reaches you at Goblin camp.)

+ there is datamined

//Edit:
Maybe if i dont get baned in next few days, and if i find the time, energy and most importantly will to play this again, i can screen some of that scene for you ...
But dont really want to make any promisses.