Larian Studios
Posted By: Sharet Why is everyone complaining about companions? - 20/10/20 12:28 AM
I see a ton of people complaining about the current companions, not because of their class/stats, but because they are mean
sad

I mean, of course they are mean! (see what I did there?) They are completely different personalities tied together against their will, strangers to one another and forced to stay together for a "common goal". Oh, and that goal is to get rid of a BRAIN PARASITE WHO IS GOING TO EAT THEM IN A MATTER OF SECONDS for what they know. In their pants I will be a lot meaner to whoever would dear to breath too close to me, in fact, they are not even close to how mean and on the edge they should realistically be.
We are not playing a story where we should calmly cooperate and go to the adventure with a smile on our faces, we are playing a race against time, completely blind to whatever is happening to us. How can anyone expect to have a friendly and relaxed relationship in such conditions?

I think the characters are written exquisitely, even when they are edgy and/or disrespectful to one another. Not to mention that after no more than 15 hours, Gale and Wyll told me I'm a friend and that they respect and are grateful to me, Astarion started to be flirty, I kissed Shadowheart and even Lae'zel who sees my race as little more than monkey said she respect me as a warrior.

In this forum I have found lots of valid criticism to the game but sometimes it seems to me people just want to complain. Everyone is mean to me, female NPCs are not nice enough, male NPS are not rough enough, combat is too difficult because the AI does the most logical thing and target the lowest AC character as a priority.
C'mon guys, we are better than this.

I can understand someone not liking the personality of a character, fair enough, but not liking it without considering the context is a weak argumentation.


EDIT: I to have found Shadowheart talking to me like shit after our kiss, but remember that in this early access a lot of conversations are screwed up both in timing and context, they are going to fix it.
I'll try to be short.

Because of the constant conflict of interest and quarrels, the interaction with/among them feel like I'm inside some bad cheap Hollywood TV show, in which every character is arguing with each other instead of trying to help each other.

I hope the story will unfold as the main PC will be able to gather them in line by leadership or something, but I am quite skeptical for now.

This is why I hate them.
OP got Shadowheart's kiss? Damn, I'm doing something very wrong. She won't even pretend to talk to me like that. LOL!

Astarion isn't just flirty. He's an outright horn dog that proposed sex during the Druid/Tiefling party. He needs to drink less. LOL! Gale claims he respects me, but I think he's just saying it because he wants me to steal the most powerful magic items I can get my hands on. Still not sure how to get the Idol of Silvanus as a wizard and not get caught. I even tried using Invisibility and the moment I took the idol, Invis got dropped...anyway.

I honestly don't think the NPCs are all that mean. Not to me, anyway. A bit shifty, but not mean. They may think I'm a bit goody-goodie...mainly because I'm trying to be. I'm trying to be Neutral or Lawful Good. It frankly looks like the game is pretty good with the effects of "Person Approves/Disapproves" comments.
Originally Posted by Lumign
I'll try to be short.

Because of the constant conflict of interest and quarrels, the interaction with/among them feel like I'm inside some bad cheap Hollywood TV show, in which every character is arguing with each other instead of trying to help each other.

I hope the story will unfold as the main PC will be able to gather them in line by leadership or something, but I am quite skeptical for now.

This is why I hate them.


What quarrels? Lae'zel vs Sbadowheart? The rest of them don't quarrel.
All is well with companions, those who complain just like to play on the good side. There really are no decent companions for a classic paladin now, but this will be fixed in release. I hope to see the Aasimar race, which is the complete opposite of tieflings.
For me personally it's simply because they aren't companions. They are main characters (origin characters) that will eventually all be playable as the main protagonist. None of these characters are bit players.. they are all main protagonists jostling for position. I don't feel like this is my characters story or that my character is in any way cool or special because all the "companions" are cool and special. It makes me feel like I'm playing with someone elses perfect party and frankly I'm selfish and want to play with my perfect party.
Its because the writing of the introduction of these characters is done insufficiently and it should be given another pass. The way you find them is hamfisted, uninteresting, crude, unsatisfying and their starting interactions are blunt and feel weird in a bad way.
Only later on this situation improves but the intro often leaves bad first impressions.
I like them all.
In my current run the companions warmed up to me really quick. I rolled ranger, went with Gale, Wyll, and Shadowheart. Gale and Wyll are super easy on the good path with Shadowheart as the only snarky one. And honestly all it takes for Shadowheart to like you is not crapping on her religion, asking about her life, and not being a brutish murderhobo.
I agree, I've seen quite a few people complain about the companions. I think some people have a certain expectation of what they think their companions should be and how they should behave. I see a lot of resentment towards Shadowheart, saying how mean she is but once you get to know her, you realize why she is like that.

Another thing that is important when playing a video game that has companions and dialogue options is getting to know your companions through dialogue.

Larian did say that once the full game releases they will include an approval rating and also a romance indicator to show how much that companion may like or dislike you.

To use Shadowheart as an example again, the first time I played, I missed finding her on the ship and when I met her on the beach she was really mean.
The second time I played, I found her on the ship and tried to help her, when I found her on the beach, she was a lot nicer.

Also, I think your companions react to you based on what race you are. I notice with my human female both Shadowheart and Astarion were neutral but when I made a female elf, they seem more comfortable around me, especially Shadowheart. She was even nicer. I found that to be interesting.

At the end people liking or not liking their companions comes to their taste and we are all different.
Shadowheart is the only character whom I still dislike with 70 hours into my gameplay atm.

I hope they work on her a bit more, she is still a moody teenager.
Gale is okay, I think he could be worked on a bit more to make his character less generic. Wyll could use work like Gale does.

Astarion is my favourite companion, he's much more fun than having Shadowheart following me around(it was especially funny when you go knocking on the shed door in the Blighted Village XD!) He is definitely one of the more fleshed out companions <3.
Lae'zel is also pretty good in terms of character development. She is not annoying like Shadowheart, I just hope she's okay with me
going into the Underdark instead of pursueing the creche XD!


For me it's because the back stories are way over the top. I've played tons of RPGs in the last 30+ years, disliked some of my companions, but liked most of them. I find it fun to interact with the current bunch, but it's hard to actually like them. They are are either super outgoing and friendly (Gale, Wyll), or in the arrogant to obnoxious realm (Shadowheart, Astarion, Lae'zel). Because of the game mechanics (when we meet, we are level one or two), Wyll can't back up his bravado (Blade of the Frontier, Living Legend, yeah right), and Gale's backstory just isn't believable.
You can't have Astarion *not* having trying to drink your blood, and to me that's an immediate disqualification. Not to mention that when you meet him, he immediately puts a knife to your throat. Lae'zel treats you as if you are something she scraped off her boots. I can actually relate to Shadowheart, because a lot of what she is putting up seems to be a front.
I just can't see why the main character, e.g. me, would be running with this bunch. The way they are introduced, I wouldn't invite them to join me, with the possible exception of Shadowheart, and her only if I tried to rescue her beforehand on the ship.
People generally come to forums to complain about something. The people who are happy with the companions are much less likely to post than people who have an axe to grind.
I havent played an excessive amount as of yet but I kind of agree. To the arguement "well, they have a parasite in their brain! Ofcourse theyre on edge!" I just have to say; its a game. In the real world we would all be panicking and act out irrationally but I kinda dont want that aspect to be so present. But if that is essential to all companions then the set-up is a mistake? There are no fun-loving, quirky live-and-let-live characters because they're all terrified of turning into a grotesque monsters. They let you behave in a nonchalant, cheerful or easy-going way, but all your companions feel antagonistic.. perhaps not Gale but the rest of them seem to always look for a challange.

An example of how you can behave in a way that isnt "This is super serious, OMG I have a parasite IM GOING TO DIE AAAAAAAH" and when I laughed out loud is when you first meet the devil and he keeps waxing about your soul or whatever... and one of the options is simply: *sit down and start eating*. I wish there were more of that, so far Larian has done alot to those who want to play a more carefree character (which is my favorite, the arrogant wizard who is autistically focused on some dumb detail instead of the overarching plot, or the fun-loving "Jack Sparrow" swashbuckling character where nothing is serious)

And I'm quite certain we wont see any more companions (as some suggest). As Larian has comfirmed, our group will be permanent once we leave Act 1 so I dont see them cramming in another 10 characters with equal dept, with voice acting ect. Maybe 1 or 2 more. This is by far the biggest detriment to the game in my opinion.
Originally Posted by Nyelin
For me it's because the back stories are way over the top. I've played tons of RPGs in the last 30+ years, disliked some of my companions, but liked most of them. I find it fun to interact with the current bunch, but it's hard to actually like them. They are are either super outgoing and friendly (Gale, Wyll), or in the arrogant to obnoxious realm (Shadowheart, Astarion, Lae'zel). Because of the game mechanics (when we meet, we are level one or two), Wyll can't back up his bravado (Blade of the Frontier, Living Legend, yeah right), and Gale's backstory just isn't believable.
You can't have Astarion *not* having trying to drink your blood, and to me that's an immediate disqualification. Not to mention that when you meet him, he immediately puts a knife to your throat. Lae'zel treats you as if you are something she scraped off her boots. I can actually relate to Shadowheart, because a lot of what she is putting up seems to be a front.
I just can't see why the main character, e.g. me, would be running with this bunch. The way they are introduced, I wouldn't invite them to join me, with the possible exception of Shadowheart, and her only if I tried to rescue her beforehand on the ship.


This.

It's not that I don't understand that they're on edge and it'll take some time to establish a good rapport. It's that these NPC's in particular are just not well written. Their backstories are too wild. If I showed up to a gaming session and my co-players had written Wyll, Gale and Astarion I would be dumbfounded. Lae'zel and Shadowheart are better, but they're still unreasonably unfriendly, what with us trying to get out of this thing alive together.
Originally Posted by Bossk_Hogg
In my current run the companions warmed up to me really quick. I rolled ranger, went with Gale, Wyll, and Shadowheart. Gale and Wyll are super easy on the good path with Shadowheart as the only snarky one. And honestly all it takes for Shadowheart to like you is not crapping on her religion, asking about her life, and not being a brutish murderhobo.


Exactly!


Originally Posted by Lady Avyna
Another thing that is important when playing a video game that has companions and dialogue options is getting to know your companions through dialogue.


This.


Originally Posted by Nyelin
Because of the game mechanics (when we meet, we are level one or two), Wyll can't back up his bravado (Blade of the Frontier, Living Legend, yeah right), and Gale's backstory just isn't believable.


On this point, I have to agree, they seem too accomplished already to be lvl ones. I think Larian should use an escamotage like "The tadpole is giving you telepathy, cool, but is weakening you for all the rest".
For many of the reasons listed here and more I personally would rather not play with the set NPS'c. The main reason for me however is not the mindless dribble interactions, it's the combat piece. The makeup of the team is horrible and doesn't at all fit my playstyle. Using this link https://attackofthefanboy.com/guides/how-to-create-custom-party-members-in-baldurs-gate-3/ and creating my own party was 1000 times more enjoyable. I got rid of all the annoying NPC interactions and was able to focus on the mission at hand only having conversations where I felt necessary.

But the huge perk was making a combat tactical party that not only fit my playstyle, it allowed me to make short work of the enemy. Combat was extremely more enjoyable on the 2nd playthrough and I spent 100 times more time utilizing each character to stick and move while using stealth tactics.

So whether you want to play a magic heavy group or a stealthy rouge group, or just something in-between I strongly suggest using the link. Hopefully Larian will just make this an option at launch for people like me and I'm sure many others who would much rather play this way.

My experience is however, for some reason developers love to try and pigeon hole players into a play style "They" feel is fun? *Shrugs*

And ultimately some bootlicking fan boy is going to chime in on why I shouldn't play a game the way I enjoy playing it. =/

Originally Posted by Slapstick


This.

It's not that I don't understand that they're on edge and it'll take some time to establish a good rapport. It's that these NPC's in particular are just not well written. Their backstories are too wild. If I showed up to a gaming session and my co-players had written Wyll, Gale and Astarion I would be dumbfounded. Lae'zel and Shadowheart are better, but they're still unreasonably unfriendly, what with us trying to get out of this thing alive together.


I think it's on purpose. I believe what Larian is trying to say by giving all the companions unique, out of the ordinary backstories is that they were purposefully selected by the "Absolute" and that the abductions weren't random. The biggest question is, can they make the MC's backstory just as unique? I certainly don't want no God Chosen crap from DOS2. That's what's really missing right now, is the backstory of the MC. Without a backstory, the companions "outshine" your MC and I think that's what a lot of people don't like. That's what I believe anyway.

On the topic of the post though, the only character I don't really like is Shadowheart....and that's ok. Can't like them all. You're bound together through necessity, not because you want to travel together and I do think that comes across quite well. Unfortunately it seems a lot of people expect an adventure among friends experience. I actually like more stand-offish characters - at least in the beginning - because it just makes more sense in the world setting. Once you get to know them, they soften up. Though I do agree that the companions introductions could be done better. Lae'zels, Shadowhearts and Wylls were fine but Astarions is off especially when you approach him from the direction of the supposed "Intellect devourer" and Gales is just cringe.

The only thing I don't like is that the companions only really interact with your character if you travel with them rather than them being in the camp the whole time. Whilst it's realistic, it's not great from a game perspective because you miss out on content with those companions and they don't give you enough time/information in act 1 to make a good decision on who your final team will be. I'm sure that's something that will get cleaned up on early access.
I have to say everyone is complaining about the characters I personally love. Wyll + Astarion are super cool. Shadowheart is already dead forever in my playthrough so in the end everyone has their own point of view.


My only problem is with the limited interactions between the characters random trash talks seem ....misplaced. There is too little interactions for strong emotions to make sense. Those who stay at the camp literally don't see you the whole day and then just behave like angry muppets when you come in. It's very silly after me.



Look at the relations in BG2 with even "evil " characters. Some people despised Khorgan or Edwin but they were consistent. They weren't mean because they were angry at you they were just as straightforward and egoistic as they humanly could. For those who don't know them you can find their voicelines on youtube. Some of them are hilarious. Mostly Edwin. And they always acted in consequence of this fact. Because that's how they were. Shadowheart isn't " strong and independent" or "egoistic". She's heavily retarded. She's not gaining anything from behaving like a muppet, she doesn't give much to your team and yet demands so much patience. It's a toxic relationship and she had to die for it.
Originally Posted by Thrandarian
And ultimately some bootlicking fan boy is going to chime in on why I shouldn't play a game the way I enjoy playing it. =/

Because only one of us can be right and it is obviously me.

I will create a huge post full of words but little content that you are unlikely actually read, I will confuse the issue and sidetrack so much that you forget what the argument was originally about.

I will use inflammatory and insulting words, but squeal 'foul' if I cam take one of your points out of context and say that it is an attack on me.

And I'll link to a string of irrelevant websites to prove, PROVE mind you, that I am right!







I believe that's how it is done.
Originally Posted by Nyelin
For me it's because the back stories are way over the top. I've played tons of RPGs in the last 30+ years, disliked some of my companions, but liked most of them. I find it fun to interact with the current bunch, but it's hard to actually like them. They are are either super outgoing and friendly (Gale, Wyll), or in the arrogant to obnoxious realm (Shadowheart, Astarion, Lae'zel). Because of the game mechanics (when we meet, we are level one or two), Wyll can't back up his bravado (Blade of the Frontier, Living Legend, yeah right), and Gale's backstory just isn't believable.
You can't have Astarion *not* having trying to drink your blood, and to me that's an immediate disqualification. Not to mention that when you meet him, he immediately puts a knife to your throat. Lae'zel treats you as if you are something she scraped off her boots. I can actually relate to Shadowheart, because a lot of what she is putting up seems to be a front.
I just can't see why the main character, e.g. me, would be running with this bunch. The way they are introduced, I wouldn't invite them to join me, with the possible exception of Shadowheart, and her only if I tried to rescue her beforehand on the ship.

In 4 characters, I've only had him put a knife to my throat once.

I can make my determination on who to take right out of the gate. If I'm not on a "tanky" character, I can keep Lae'zel. If I'm needing the services of a healer more often than I'd like to admit, I can keep Shadowheart. If I'm not a rogue, and think I'll need one, Astarion is on call. I'm not meant to get all the story beats in one playthrough, so if I decide one of them must die early on, I can do that too.

What I really hope will happen is that this will be one of those games where I spend 1000s of hours in it. Not a "one and done" game, or one I can't even bring myself to finish. With that in mind, I'm perfectly fine with not being a "people pleaser", making choices just to jack up approval on the comps. If they don't like me, so be it. If they don't like my choices, so be it. I'm not going to be fussed about it, and I'm not going to alter my plan for a character just to garner some approval. They are their own person, and that's great. I don't like everyone I meet out here in the real world, and I don't expect I'll like everyone I meet in a game either. I'm not going to harbor any resentment towards them because they don't make me feel like a special snowflake either. Truth be told, I'd rather not be a special snowflake, for a change.

I've played the trope so many times, it'd be refreshing to just be "one of the boys". That's not going to be the case here, we're going to be a special snowflake, even if I'm not sure exactly why, just yet, but the story focus is going to fall squarely on us, again. I wouldn't have a problem with being part of the solution, instead of being the solution. I wouldn't mind being the "leader" of this group simply because I was the only one willing to take up the mantle. At the end of the day though, this team is made out of the need to work towards a common goal, not becoming a mind flayer, than any sense of friendship. If it's the only way to save my ass, I can work with people I may not care for to do it. Of course the Origin characters have fleshed out back stories, they're designed by Larian, and they can be the main character, at some point. Custom characters are supposed to be blank slates, at least if my experience with 30 years of RPGs is anything to judge off of. It's amazing to read on these forums the implication that Larian should have completely written the backstory for the main character, if it's custom.
After over 130 hours I actually like most of them. Astarion just rubs me the wrong way with his snooty voice and speaking manner, so I rarely use him. He sulks like a child.

Shadowheart is okay, I got the approval for the drinking wine, etc. after the party on one playthough. I think the bit about her past is going to come back up, like maybe - just maybe - she did not really believe what she thinks she does.

Lae'Zel is pretty straight forward and I can see where she is coming from. Of all the companions SHE understands and is most repulsed by what a tadpole means. Her people were changed from their original stock to be slaves for the Illithid. They have no concept of a historic home. Even should they find the plan/world they came from they would not recognize it anymore or its people. They hate the Illithid with every fiber of their being and to turn into one would be the ultimate horror. So she is focused on getting the damned thing out. Her people tell her there is ONE way to do so, you have to go to get 'Purified'. (IMO that is going to mean killed). So, if you think about her in that light, yeah I can totally see how she is not happy if you take time to help other people as to her, each second you waste is her getting closer to being a MindFlayer abomination.

Gayle is an okay guy, his addiction to magic items can be somewhat irritating (NO Gayle, you are NOT getting my sword!) but I like him.

Wyll is actually kind of fun to have around (he hits on Lae'Zel and when that fails, starts in on Shadowheart). I actually could see playing through once as him.

as far as romance favor goes - Lae'Zel does not like ANYTHING to do with Shadowheart, so the more you try and make happy with Shadowheart the more Lae'Zel will dislike you. (And I am pretty sure it works both ways). Lae'Zel will wear you out after the party if you have her approval. Shadowheart is a slower burn and wants to talk / drink some wine with a kiss in the morining. Gayle and Astarion are apparently horndogs and want you no matter what. Every playthrough they hit on me at the party. Wyll seems more (so far for me anyway) subdued.

But Shadowheart, Gayle and Astarion Approve you petting the doggy, so there is that. Piss one of them off and go to camp and pet the doggy some.
Originally Posted by Eluvian
I think it's on purpose. I believe what Larian is trying to say by giving all the companions unique, out of the ordinary backstories is that they were purposefully selected by the "Absolute" and that the abductions weren't random. The biggest question is, can they make the MC's backstory just as unique? I certainly don't want no God Chosen crap from DOS2. That's what's really missing right now, is the backstory of the MC. Without a backstory, the companions "outshine" your MC and I think that's what a lot of people don't like. That's what I believe anyway.


That's a good point about how the MC and the companions seem to be Chosen Ones by the Absolute for some nefarious purpose. Among other things, it would explain why we're not transforming on the usual schedule, and why other NPCs infected with the tadpole lose it when they die. It makes for different adventuring party dynamics than a typical CRPG. The companions are a bit more colorful and not just subservient to the player main character.

Most of the complaints I've seen are either based around not having a preferred romance option, or having so few companions that we can't put together an optimized party based on preferred "alignment." That's just a trade-off for having fully animated cut scenes and voice acting, which is resource-intensive for a small game studio. We're not going to have dozens of choices here.

Personally, I'm not stuck on the idea of having an all-Good aligned party, and romance isn't important to me because it's seldom done well in this kind of game anyway. I could go through the rest of the game with my current party of Lae'zel, Shadowheart, and Gale with my MC Rogue without complaint. And we haven't even seen the remaining 4 companions yet.
Originally Posted by vyvexthorne
For me personally it's simply because they aren't companions. They are main characters (origin characters) that will eventually all be playable as the main protagonist. None of these characters are bit players.. they are all main protagonists jostling for position. I don't feel like this is my characters story or that my character is in any way cool or special because all the "companions" are cool and special. It makes me feel like I'm playing with someone elses perfect party and frankly I'm selfish and want to play with my perfect party.
a custom pc feels more like a passenger then the one driving the plot - ive played through ea a couple times and i always leave it with the feeling that if my pc never survived the ship crash the whole narrative/story would still have carried on without me, a custom pc just isnt unique - like, everyone has tadpoles lol
Originally Posted by Sharet
I see a ton of people complaining about the current companions, not because of their class/stats, but because they are mean
sad

No. That is the point that people who defend them feel the need to hang on to because everything else has to do with comparative quality to older games as well as written work in which case they don't even scratch the surface of professional writing or characters. People who do not like the companions, such as myself, do not like them because they are poorly written. For a large part this can be attributed to the schizophrenic nature of origin characters as having to be main characters even when they are just sidekicks. Do you know a person in real life that is so self centered and yet people love and adore them and never criticize them? Do you know someone that tries to steal the spotlight and make everything about themselves and constantly complain in real life that is fun to be around?

Originally Posted by Sharet
I mean, of course they are mean! (see what I did there?) They are completely different personalities tied together against their will, strangers to one another and forced to stay together for a "common goal". Oh, and that goal is to get rid of a BRAIN PARASITE WHO IS GOING TO EAT THEM IN A MATTER OF SECONDS for what they know. In their pants I will be a lot meaner to whoever would dear to breath too close to me, in fact, they are not even close to how mean and on the edge they should realistically be.

So you treat people at your job like dirt then? Don't be so infantile. Not only are there countless examples of how people can come together under extreme duress despite being extremely different and not behave like spoiled children. Victims of trauma also do not manifest the same response and pushing people away or taking your problems out on other people is universally considered to be in poor taste but more importantly is scientifically known to be a self destructive desire that has nothing to do with your trauma or experiences and has a lot more to do with a sense of self loathing and self destructiveness. I'm sure you have heard of Sherlock Holmes and his opioid habit? Clinical Psychiatrists and neuroscientists often describe the addiction to these extreme attitude as "seeking oblivion". I can give you examples of these kind of characters done in a multitude of different ways that are far superior including examples from older games but I've done it so many times already in the brief time that I've been on this board that I've already burned out and if you are really that interested for my take feel free to PM me.

Originally Posted by Sharet
We are not playing a story where we should calmly cooperate and go to the adventure with a smile on our faces, we are playing a race against time, completely blind to whatever is happening to us. How can anyone expect to have a friendly and relaxed relationship in such conditions?

You've never seen pictures of WWI soldiers in the trenches playing with cats or smiling or playing cards? Breaking down and being an insufferable detractor of everyone around you is not healthy and it is not something that inspires sympathy. We have to like these characters and in fact Larian is making it almost obligatory to play with them as companions. Why would they choose to write them in such a way that makes them insufferable. Completely ignoring how poorly written and one dimensional they are these characters could be written to be much more sympathetic or at least motivate you to care about them without making them mary sues that you are forced upon you. The same messages and themes could be delivered while only changing their attitude to make a far superior experience.

With all of that out of the way consider if you where in a life threatening situation of a similar nature. Let's say you suspect you have carbon monoxide poisoning. This WILL kill you slowly. Would you run away from people and every time someone tried to help you shout at them, demean them and so on or would you try to be polite and explain the situation and seek their help? Would you then try to sleep with them out of nowhere?

Originally Posted by Sharet
I think the characters are written exquisitely, even when they are edgy and/or disrespectful to one another. Not to mention that after no more than 15 hours, Gale and Wyll told me I'm a friend and that they respect and are grateful to me, Astarion started to be flirty, I kissed Shadowheart and even Lae'zel who sees my race as little more than monkey said she respect me as a warrior.[quote]
Written exquisitely compared to what? Even ignoring everything else I've said so far please give an example to compare them to as a basis seeing as your analysis of them and the writing is only skin deep.

[quote=Sharet]In this forum I have found lots of valid criticism to the game but sometimes it seems to me people just want to complain. Everyone is mean to me, female NPCs are not nice enough, male NPS are not rough enough, combat is too difficult because the AI does the most logical thing and target the lowest AC character as a priority.
C'mon guys, we are better than this.

I can understand someone not liking the personality of a character, fair enough, but not liking it without considering the context is a weak argumentation.


EDIT: I to have found Shadowheart talking to me like shit after our kiss, but remember that in this early access a lot of conversations are screwed up both in timing and context, they are going to fix it.

Of course we want to complain. Larian decided they wanted to fill the shoes of BG with a sequel no one asked for that has no continuity and nothing to do with the previous games in the series. You better believe they've got to knock this one out of the park of they are going to make a lot of people extremely angry and alienated with them.
One of the major issues I have with the characters is the backstory does not befit level 1 characters. Lae'zel is okay I suppose, given we are meant to believe she's very green. And Shadowheart's amnesia may cover her seeming lack of skill. But Asterion has led a long life, and Gale and Wyll have had their own adventures prior to meeting the PC. It simply is not believable they will be Level 1 characters when they meet the player.
If I meet them in Baldur's Gate 1 will kill them faster than kobold in Nashkel mine.
Originally Posted by Rouoko
If I meet them in Baldur's Gate 1 will kill them faster than kobold in Nashkel mine.



Honestly they remind me a lot in some ways of the annoying pushy NPCS added by Beamdog in BGEE.
Argonaut, you are my hero of these forums really, I agree with about 99% of stuff you have written in most of the topics you have participated in.

Now, to add to this conversation, I think people dislike the companions cause more often than not they steal all the spotlight. I wish that Larian would drop the entire idea of origin stories, as I have said it many times before, or keep them confined to DOS games only, they have absolutely no reason hamfisting them into BG series. Period.

Hell, I don't really hate a single one of them. I understand that they are each different people caught in difficult circumstances forcing them to work together. But they do need to work on their sympathetic skills a bit more. The only one who could possibly get away being the major pain in the butt is Lae'zel, her being a githyanki and all that. She sees all the races of Faerun as inferior, and it shows. At least she's honest about that. Also, the circumstances you meet each of the companions under is pretty bit weird, Astarion being indeed a shining example among all of them. There should indeed be a way for the others you have recruited to at least REACT to him pulling a knife on us. They don't have to help, but at least react, say something. It's not that much to ask for, is it?

And speaking of our PC, Larian could implement such a simple fix for our lack of any visible backstory, well we do have backgrounds - acolyte, noble and so on. But they never come up in dialogue. I played as a seldarine drow acolyte cleric of Eilistraee on my first run, on my 2nd I went with high elven wizard noble. Now the racial and class dialogues come up often, but the 'background' never does. Never. My newest character is a drow warlock of the old ones, with the entertainer background, and I can already predict that the entertainer background will never ever come up in dialogue. I mean, is it really so hard to implement the backgrounds as some sort of backstories for our PCs? Like hell, Larian could give us 2 options even as to what you did via dialogue like it was done in POE, and people would not complain as much about our PCs being a full empty blank slate. Hell, I wouldn't complain anymore. Our PCs backstory doesn't have to as grand as the origin characters' one, but at least make it matter a little bit more.
I'm sure
Originally Posted by Rouoko
If I meet them in Baldur's Gate 1 will kill them faster than kobold in Nashkel mine.

Like you killed xan and monty right?
Did anyone else use that Modded female companion in BG2? She was some sort of sword-warrior-barbarian and was found in the first part of the game - within the dungeon complex.

The Mod designers whacked her DEX up to 19 (in 2e this was a Major score), gave her two unique swords that she would not let go of, even when the only way to hit anything was using a missile weapon, and had Mary Sue dialogue inserted into just about every portion of the game. I played her in the party a couple of times before becoming heartily sick of her attention-grabbing dialogue.
Originally Posted by Sadurian
Originally Posted by Thrandarian
And ultimately some bootlicking fan boy is going to chime in on why I shouldn't play a game the way I enjoy playing it. =/

Because only one of us can be right and it is obviously me.

I will create a huge post full of words but little content that you are unlikely actually read, I will confuse the issue and sidetrack so much that you forget what the argument was originally about.

I will use inflammatory and insulting words, but squeal 'foul' if I cam take one of your points out of context and say that it is an attack on me.

And I'll link to a string of irrelevant websites to prove, PROVE mind you, that I am right!

Yes, if we can fill threads with huge posts by us and discourage anyone else from participating then we win early access. It's definitely not a bad faith attempt to try to highjack this specific development style and anyone who is regularly combative is not a bad actor.

edit: As for the topic at hand. I really think it's just ruby tinted glasses. People remember BG1 and BG2 really fondly and likely played them when they were younger and more forgiving of things. Now they've built up amazing unmeetable standards for what they want in the game and the characters have fallen short. Now they're going to fight tooth and nail because somehow they really believe they're going to trigger Larian to do emergency rewrites or something.

This idea that Shadowheart is some terrible character and Morrigan is some amazing piece of writing is some kind of really personal opinion. It's valid to the person who feels this way, but it's clearly steeped in bias. Same thing for Astarion being dumb and Edwin being some amazing layered character.
Originally Posted by Nicottia
Argonaut, you are my hero of these forums really, I agree with about 99% of stuff you have written in most of the topics you have participated in.

Now, to add to this conversation, I think people dislike the companions cause more often than not they steal all the spotlight. I wish that Larian would drop the entire idea of origin stories, as I have said it many times before, or keep them confined to DOS games only, they have absolutely no reason hamfisting them into BG series. Period.

Hell, I don't really hate a single one of them. I understand that they are each different people caught in difficult circumstances forcing them to work together. But they do need to work on their sympathetic skills a bit more. The only one who could possibly get away being the major pain in the butt is Lae'zel, her being a githyanki and all that. She sees all the races of Faerun as inferior, and it shows. At least she's honest about that. Also, the circumstances you meet each of the companions under is pretty bit weird, Astarion being indeed a shining example among all of them. There should indeed be a way for the others you have recruited to at least REACT to him pulling a knife on us. They don't have to help, but at least react, say something. It's not that much to ask for, is it?

And speaking of our PC, Larian could implement such a simple fix for our lack of any visible backstory, well we do have backgrounds - acolyte, noble and so on. But they never come up in dialogue. I played as a seldarine drow acolyte cleric of Eilistraee on my first run, on my 2nd I went with high elven wizard noble. Now the racial and class dialogues come up often, but the 'background' never does. Never. My newest character is a drow warlock of the old ones, with the entertainer background, and I can already predict that the entertainer background will never ever come up in dialogue. I mean, is it really so hard to implement the backgrounds as some sort of backstories for our PCs? Like hell, Larian could give us 2 options even as to what you did via dialogue like it was done in POE, and people would not complain as much about our PCs being a full empty blank slate. Hell, I wouldn't complain anymore. Our PCs backstory doesn't have to as grand as the origin characters' one, but at least make it matter a little bit more.

Are we playing the same game? Both of my Drow have had Drow specific dialog. Maybe your version is earlier than mine, and my choices were added later? One of the lines was akin to "If you see red eyes, run", when talking to one of the Tiefling children in the Grove.

Again, however, I don't want Larian writing a backstory for my custom characters, and I'm still really amazed at how many people here seem to not only want it, but need it?
No, no. I go around them and get back after I meet Khalim and Jeheira. And Blow them up with my fireball! Because I'm child of Bhaal!

Ialso I often play d&d as a kobold bard or paladin.
Originally Posted by robertthebard
Are we playing the same game? Both of my Drow have had Drow specific dialog. Maybe your version is earlier than mine, and my choices were added later? One of the lines was akin to "If you see red eyes, run", when talking to one of the Tiefling children in the Grove.

Again, however, I don't want Larian writing a backstory for my custom characters, and I'm still really amazed at how many people here seem to not only want it, but need it?

Uh just to slide in here before this turns into some massive back and forth. I believe Nicottia wants dialog that's like [SAILOR] or [CROOK] based on character background. This of course might not implemented yet or not at all. I'd honestly prefer to choose a God than get [URCHIN] specific dialogs.
Originally Posted by Abits
I'm sure
Originally Posted by Rouoko
If I meet them in Baldur's Gate 1 will kill them faster than kobold in Nashkel mine.

Like you killed xan and monty right?

[Linked Image]
Yes.
Originally Posted by robertthebard
Are we playing the same game? Both of my Drow have had Drow specific dialog. Maybe your version is earlier than mine, and my choices were added later? One of the lines was akin to "If you see red eyes, run", when talking to one of the Tiefling children in the Grove.

Again, however, I don't want Larian writing a backstory for my custom characters, and I'm still really amazed at how many people here seem to not only want it, but need it?


Did you even read what I wrote or just skimmed through it looking for keywords?

Ugh, I did write that the race and class do come up in dialogues. But unless you missed it, you can choose your background:

[Linked Image]

This is my main source of complaint as it never comes up in dialogue.

So it's there but unused. Totally pointless.
I agree the idea of origin characters is lame and part of the Larian's game philosophy of "let's just do cool stuff who cares how it affects the narrative" but based on the amount of downvotes I get every time I mention it on Reddit it's not gonna go away.

That said, I don't sure how much they really "steal the spotlight" in practice, even if it's true in theory. I'll be happy to hear some examples if any of you guys have any.

I feel like the "clean slate" status of my character actually works to my character's advantage. I'm not sure if it was intentional, but the fact I'm surrounded by crazies, each one of them with more issues than the other, makes my vault dweller seem like the only adult around. It reminds me of (and I can't believe I'm saying it) Persona 4, a game that wrote the book about generic MC.
Originally Posted by Worm
Originally Posted by robertthebard
Are we playing the same game? Both of my Drow have had Drow specific dialog. Maybe your version is earlier than mine, and my choices were added later? One of the lines was akin to "If you see red eyes, run", when talking to one of the Tiefling children in the Grove.

Again, however, I don't want Larian writing a backstory for my custom characters, and I'm still really amazed at how many people here seem to not only want it, but need it?

Uh just to slide in here before this turns into some massive back and forth. I believe Nicottia wants dialog that's like [SAILOR] or [CROOK] based on character background. This of course might not implemented yet or not at all. I'd honestly prefer to choose a God than get [URCHIN] specific dialogs.

I believe you are correct. Re-reading the post showed me something I missed.
Originally Posted by Argonaut
Originally Posted by Abits
I'm sure
Originally Posted by Rouoko
If I meet them in Baldur's Gate 1 will kill them faster than kobold in Nashkel mine.

Like you killed xan and monty right?

[Linked Image]
Yes.

My man cool
Originally Posted by Nicottia
Originally Posted by robertthebard
Are we playing the same game? Both of my Drow have had Drow specific dialog. Maybe your version is earlier than mine, and my choices were added later? One of the lines was akin to "If you see red eyes, run", when talking to one of the Tiefling children in the Grove.

Again, however, I don't want Larian writing a backstory for my custom characters, and I'm still really amazed at how many people here seem to not only want it, but need it?


Did you even read what I wrote or just skimmed through it looking for keywords?

Ugh, I did write that the race and class do come up in dialogues. But unless you missed it, you can choose your background:

[Linked Image]

This is my main source of complaint as it never comes up in dialogue.

So it's there but unused. Totally pointless.

Yeah, sorry about that, I caught the "racial" mention on a second read through of your post. My bad, never post before a third cup of coffee, I guess. That might be worse than posting drunk...
Origin characters are not bad, msot players jsut don't like them. Like people don't like Trump laugh
Originally Posted by Rouoko
Origin characters are not bad, msot players jsut don't like them. Like people don't like Trump laugh

Origin characters are bad. They are poorly designed, poorly written and poorly thought out. You can find reasons for this all over the forums. They where bad in DivOS2 but in BG3 they are absolutely trash tier.
Originally Posted by Argonaut
Originally Posted by Rouoko
Origin characters are not bad, msot players jsut don't like them. Like people don't like Trump laugh

Origin characters are bad. They are poorly designed, poorly written and poorly thought out. You can find reasons for this all over the forums. They where bad in DivOS2 but in BG3 they are absolutely trash tier.



You keep stating your opinion as fact. Keep up the sputtering rants though! I'm sure they'll get rid of countless hours of work just to suit you lol.
Originally Posted by Argonaut
Originally Posted by Rouoko
Origin characters are not bad, msot players jsut don't like them. Like people don't like Trump laugh

Origin characters are bad. They are poorly designed, poorly written and poorly thought out. You can find reasons for this all over the forums. They where bad in DivOS2 but in BG3 they are absolutely trash tier.

Are you basing this on your inability to follow a narrative, or your inability to pick up on subtext?
Originally Posted by robertthebard
Yeah, sorry about that, I caught the "racial" mention on a second read through of your post. My bad, never post before a third cup of coffee, I guess. That might be worse than posting drunk...


Yeah, no problemo my man. wink But like I said, they don't have to write the story of your PC, your background should already define that. Aside from giving you a bunch of 'free' proficiencies. Then they could expand that - like with the entertainer - were you a part of circus, a singer in a tavern or something else? Being given a limited choice would be nice. Also, the entertainer coming up in dialogue with that bard tiefling chick in the Druid Grove would make sense, no?

Originally Posted by Abits
That said, I don't sure how much they really "steal the spotlight" in practice, even if it's true in theory. I'll be happy to hear some examples if any of you guys have any.


Do you really want me to talk about how special Gale is and how his entire backstory not only steals the spotlight of the PC, but he's so damn special that he needs a contingency plan for when he dies (what given his backstory makes sense ofc)?

The man, the legend, the second coming of Elminster and Khelben, man who is on par with the greatest wizards ever known because he was a chosen of Mystra, he made love to a goddess but clearly, his love making skills weren't enough for the goddess dumped him, so he got stuck trying to woo her back by getting that big bad Netherese time bomb stuck in his chest, requiring him to suck magic or it goes boom super sonic.


Then there is Shadowheart, with her amnesia and purple sparkly magic, which I will bet is some sort of connection to the Shadow Weave. But still, nobody steals the spotlight as much as Gale does. Like legit, Astarion or even Wyll don't even come close to Gale. So far, Lae is the most normal of the whole bunch, given she's a githyanki of course.

Originally Posted by Nicottia
Originally Posted by robertthebard
Yeah, sorry about that, I caught the "racial" mention on a second read through of your post. My bad, never post before a third cup of coffee, I guess. That might be worse than posting drunk...


Yeah, no problemo my man. wink But like I said, they don't have to write the story of your PC, your background should already define that. Aside from giving you a bunch of 'free' proficiencies. Then they could expand that - like with the entertainer - were you a part of circus, a singer in a tavern or something else? Being given a limited choice would be nice. Also, the entertainer coming up in dialogue with that bard tiefling chick in the Druid Grove would make sense, no?

Originally Posted by Abits
That said, I don't sure how much they really "steal the spotlight" in practice, even if it's true in theory. I'll be happy to hear some examples if any of you guys have any.


Do you really want me to talk about how special Gale is and how his entire backstory not only steals the spotlight of the PC, but he's so damn special that he needs a contingency plan for when he dies (what given his backstory makes sense ofc)?

The man, the legend, the second coming of Elminster and Khelben, man who is on par with the greatest wizards ever known because he was a chosen of Mystra, he made love to a goddess but clearly, his love making skills weren't enough for the goddess dumped him, so he got stuck trying to woo her back by getting that big bad Netherese time bomb stuck in his chest, requiring him to suck magic or it goes boom super sonic.


Then there is Shadowheart, with her amnesia and purple sparkly magic, which I will bet is some sort of connection to the Shadow Weave. But still, nobody steals the spotlight as much as Gale does. Like legit, Astarion or even Wyll don't even come close to Gale. So far, Lae is the most normal of the whole bunch, given she's a githyanki of course.


Maybe they'll get to that as more classes are added. The Entertainer, while not mutually exclusive, would fit a bard really well.

Side note, that bard encounter was a highlight of the game, to this point.
your opinion is trash tier
you idiots expecting a team of random ppl that don't know eachother to just all fit together and work as a team from act 1. Think they know good writing
Originally Posted by Nicottia
Originally Posted by robertthebard
Yeah, sorry about that, I caught the "racial" mention on a second read through of your post. My bad, never post before a third cup of coffee, I guess. That might be worse than posting drunk...


Yeah, no problemo my man. wink But like I said, they don't have to write the story of your PC, your background should already define that. Aside from giving you a bunch of 'free' proficiencies. Then they could expand that - like with the entertainer - were you a part of circus, a singer in a tavern or something else? Being given a limited choice would be nice. Also, the entertainer coming up in dialogue with that bard tiefling chick in the Druid Grove would make sense, no?

Originally Posted by Abits
That said, I don't sure how much they really "steal the spotlight" in practice, even if it's true in theory. I'll be happy to hear some examples if any of you guys have any.


Do you really want me to talk about how special Gale is and how his entire backstory not only steals the spotlight of the PC, but he's so damn special that he needs a contingency plan for when he dies (what given his backstory makes sense ofc)?

The man, the legend, the second coming of Elminster and Khelben, man who is on par with the greatest wizards ever known because he was a chosen of Mystra, he made love to a goddess but clearly, his love making skills weren't enough for the goddess dumped him, so he got stuck trying to woo her back by getting that big bad Netherese time bomb stuck in his chest, requiring him to suck magic or it goes boom super sonic.


Then there is Shadowheart, with her amnesia and purple sparkly magic, which I will bet is some sort of connection to the Shadow Weave. But still, nobody steals the spotlight as much as Gale does. Like legit, Astarion or even Wyll don't even come close to Gale. So far, Lae is the most normal of the whole bunch, given she's a githyanki of course.


Not what I meant. What I meant was, how many times the story had to stop because of your companions? I can think of two small things that happened with shadowheart, Wyll and the goblins, and Layzel with the gith. But other than that, for most of the game they have no major affect of what's actually going on
Originally Posted by FrostyFardragon
People generally come to forums to complain about something. The people who are happy with the companions are much less likely to post than people who have an axe to grind.


This. Add in the neckbeard factor because a female character dares to be anything but a doe eyed waifu and, well...

Maybe they can add in some mute companions for those who cant handle anything beyond Tolkeinesque low fantasy dirt farmers. The dwarf from the hag's hut can be your bog standard dwarven fighter. Maybe he can say "it if aint dwarven, its crap" in a scottish accent! Oho! That was funny 40 years ago and certainly still holds up! Add in an elven ranger, a hobbit thief, and an old wizard (really just Gale with a beard) and a passive cute female life cleric. Give Tav an amulet that has the narrator intone "You're a special boy! Not only are you special, but you're the MOST special, and no one else is special!". They can click it whenever they need the validation. Then the grandpa crowd can shut up and get to Denny's for their senior specials.
Originally Posted by robertthebard
Maybe they'll get to that as more classes are added. The Entertainer, while not mutually exclusive, would fit a bard really well.

Side note, that bard encounter was a highlight of the game, to this point.


Agreed, that entire song made me tear up IRL. But then again, I'm a softie. wink

But I still think the backgrounds should matter more. Cause, yes, bards are entertainers, but so wizards and sorcerers could be as well, you know, magic tricks, balls of light and what not. wink
Originally Posted by Abits
Originally Posted by Nicottia
Originally Posted by robertthebard
Yeah, sorry about that, I caught the "racial" mention on a second read through of your post. My bad, never post before a third cup of coffee, I guess. That might be worse than posting drunk...


Yeah, no problemo my man. wink But like I said, they don't have to write the story of your PC, your background should already define that. Aside from giving you a bunch of 'free' proficiencies. Then they could expand that - like with the entertainer - were you a part of circus, a singer in a tavern or something else? Being given a limited choice would be nice. Also, the entertainer coming up in dialogue with that bard tiefling chick in the Druid Grove would make sense, no?

Originally Posted by Abits
That said, I don't sure how much they really "steal the spotlight" in practice, even if it's true in theory. I'll be happy to hear some examples if any of you guys have any.


Do you really want me to talk about how special Gale is and how his entire backstory not only steals the spotlight of the PC, but he's so damn special that he needs a contingency plan for when he dies (what given his backstory makes sense ofc)?

The man, the legend, the second coming of Elminster and Khelben, man who is on par with the greatest wizards ever known because he was a chosen of Mystra, he made love to a goddess but clearly, his love making skills weren't enough for the goddess dumped him, so he got stuck trying to woo her back by getting that big bad Netherese time bomb stuck in his chest, requiring him to suck magic or it goes boom super sonic.


Then there is Shadowheart, with her amnesia and purple sparkly magic, which I will bet is some sort of connection to the Shadow Weave. But still, nobody steals the spotlight as much as Gale does. Like legit, Astarion or even Wyll don't even come close to Gale. So far, Lae is the most normal of the whole bunch, given she's a githyanki of course.


Not what I meant. What I meant was, how many times the story had to stop because of your companions? I can think of two small things that happened with shadowheart, Wyll and the goblins, and Layzel with the gith. But other than that, for most of the game they have no major affect of what's actually going on

Because we don't have most of the game yet? We only have Act I. How many acts are there? What happens with them in Act II? Act III? We don't know, and can't know, for now.
Some recent posts have managed to turn the Dismissive and Patronising up to 11!

Someone else's opinion is as relevant as yours. If someone doesn't like what you like, that does not make them in any way inferior.
Originally Posted by Bossk_Hogg
Originally Posted by Argonaut
Originally Posted by Rouoko
Origin characters are not bad, msot players jsut don't like them. Like people don't like Trump laugh

Origin characters are bad. They are poorly designed, poorly written and poorly thought out. You can find reasons for this all over the forums. They where bad in DivOS2 but in BG3 they are absolutely trash tier.



You keep stating your opinion as fact. Keep up the sputtering rants though! I'm sure they'll get rid of countless hours of work just to suit you lol.

That's a big boy statement for such a little man. Would you like to challenge the arguments instead of trying to talk down to me or is should I take it that this is the level of maturity and mental fortitude of people that consider them to be well written?




Originally Posted by robertthebard
Originally Posted by Argonaut
Originally Posted by Rouoko
Origin characters are not bad, msot players jsut don't like them. Like people don't like Trump laugh

Origin characters are bad. They are poorly designed, poorly written and poorly thought out. You can find reasons for this all over the forums. They where bad in DivOS2 but in BG3 they are absolutely trash tier.

Are you basing this on your inability to follow a narrative, or your inability to pick up on subtext?

I'm basing it on your inability to play the game without savescumming.
Originally Posted by Sadurian
Some recent posts have managed to turn the Dismissive and Patronising up to 11!

Someone else's opinion is as relevant as yours. If someone doesn't like what you like, that does not make them in any way inferior.

Shh, it's often best to let children make fools of themselves in their confidence. That way you know immediately that it's not worth taking them seriously.
Originally Posted by Abits
Not what I meant. What I meant was, how many times the story had to stop because of your companions? I can think of two small things that happened with shadowheart, Wyll and the goblins, and Layzel with the gith. But other than that, for most of the game they have no major affect of what's actually going on


So you want specific encounters were companions take over the conversation? Fine.

Astarion with the Gur monster hunter, if you don't let Astarion kill him, Astarion will get big mad at you, 99% chance that encounter will turn violent regardless (if you refuse to kill that Gur guy, high chance you might end up fighting Astarion instead). Then there is Lae with her githyanki patrol, that scene plays out entirely differently if you have her with you or sitting at the camp. Shadowheart and her purple stuff highjacking some scenes, her being big mad at you for daring to open that Selunite cache at the owlbear cave. Wyll being Wyll at the gobbo camp, making nearly all encounters deadly, cause of the way he trashtalks 'em, like with the priestess Gut he's like 'oh, let's kill her!' and you can either tell him to cool down and interrogate her (will make him big mad at you) or kill her cause a big chain fight. Same goes for all the globlin leaders, it would be nice if he let us ask questions first and then kill them. Find out what the absolute is and what it wants with us. And I'm sure there is more.

Edit: Fixed a bunch of typos.
Originally Posted by Argonaut
Originally Posted by Bossk_Hogg
Originally Posted by Argonaut
Originally Posted by Rouoko
Origin characters are not bad, msot players jsut don't like them. Like people don't like Trump laugh

Origin characters are bad. They are poorly designed, poorly written and poorly thought out. You can find reasons for this all over the forums. They where bad in DivOS2 but in BG3 they are absolutely trash tier.



You keep stating your opinion as fact. Keep up the sputtering rants though! I'm sure they'll get rid of countless hours of work just to suit you lol.

That's a big boy statement for such a little man. Would you like to challenge the arguments instead of trying to talk down to me or is should I take it that this is the level of maturity and mental fortitude of people that consider them to be well written?



"These characters are poorly written" isnt a fact, and isnt even an argument. Plus you'll just whine about ad hominem, incorrectly say everything you cant counter is a fallacy, and ignore the substance of any challenge. Its what you "debate me you coward" types always do. So, keep typing up long responses that will amount to nothing.


Originally Posted by robertthebard
Because we don't have most of the game yet? We only have Act I. How many acts are there? What happens with them in Act II? Act III? We don't know, and can't know, for now.


Technically, we don't even have all of Act 1, just most of it.



Originally Posted by robertthebard
Originally Posted by Argonaut

Origin characters are bad. They are poorly designed, poorly written and poorly thought out. You can find reasons for this all over the forums. They where bad in DivOS2 but in BG3 they are absolutely trash tier.

Are you basing this on your inability to follow a narrative, or your inability to pick up on subtext?

I'm basing it on your inability to play the game without savescumming.


Citations needed. Oh, my bad, I mean, provide some evidence for my inability to play the game w/out save scumming.
Originally Posted by Bossk_Hogg

"These characters are poorly written" isnt a fact, and isnt even an argument. Plus you'll just whine about ad hominem, incorrectly say everything you cant counter is a fallacy, and ignore the substance of any challenge. Its what you "debate me you coward" types always do. So, keep typing up long responses that will amount to nothing.

Oh dear little man, you are not helping your case. Are you aware that this thread has more than one page and that there was discussion before you loudly burst in to measure the length of your member? I would have tried to conceal mine if it was so frail and lackluster. Go play somewhere else.

Originally Posted by robertthebard
Originally Posted by robertthebard
Originally Posted by Argonaut

Origin characters are bad. They are poorly designed, poorly written and poorly thought out. You can find reasons for this all over the forums. They where bad in DivOS2 but in BG3 they are absolutely trash tier.

Are you basing this on your inability to follow a narrative, or your inability to pick up on subtext?

I'm basing it on your inability to play the game without savescumming.


Citations needed. Oh, my bad, I mean, provide some evidence for my inability to play the game w/out save scumming.

You show me yours I'll show you mine baby.
Originally Posted by Nicottia
Originally Posted by Abits
Not what I meant. What I meant was, how many times the story had to stop because of your companions? I can think of two small things that happened with shadowheart, Wyll and the goblins, and Layzel with the gith. But other than that, for most of the game they have no major affect of what's actually going on


So you want specific encounters were companions take over the conversation? Fine.

Astarion with the Gur monster hunter, if you don't let Astarion kill him, Astarion will get big mad at you, 99% chance that encounter will turn violent regardless (if you refuse to kill that Gur guy, high chance you might end up fighting Astarion instead). Then there is Lae with her githyanki patrol, that scene plays out entirely differently if you have her with you or sitting in a camp. Shadowheart and her purple stuff highjacking some scenes, her being big mad at you for daring to open that Selunite cache at the owlbear cave. Wyll being Wyll at the goboo camp, making nearly all encounters deadly, cause of the way he trashtalks 'em, like with the priestess Gut he's like 'oh, let's kill her!' and you can either tell him to cool down and interrogate her (will make him big mad at you) or kill her cause a big chain fight. Same goes for all the globlin leaders, it would be nice if he let us ask questions first and then kill them. Find out what the absolute is and what it wants with us. And I'm sure there is more.

All true but all of these (with perhaps the gith encounter as the only exception) are not really big part of the story and are very similar to companions quests in other games. They are more extensive, but I think it's a plus rather than a minus. My only real issue is with Wyll's case, that gave me serious Dos2 vibes. It wasn't as bad as in dos 2 (let me remind you - you meet the dreamer and than the Red Prince not only takes over, you don't even hear what they Re talking about and just stand like a dofus until they are done). Still, I think, again, that the problem here is with event flags. The game should accommodate the fact that you are the main character better, and let you more choices in these cases.
I'm happy for my companions to be the reason for conversation and side-quests. The more they are meaningfully involved, the better.
Originally Posted by Abits
All true but all of these (with perhaps the gith encounter as the only exception) are not really big part of the story and are very similar to companions quests in other games. They are more extensive, but I think it's a plus rather than a minus. My only real issue is with Wyll's case, that gave me serious Dos2 vibes. It wasn't as bad as in dos 2 (let me remind you - you meet the dreamer and than the Red Prince not only takes over, you don't even hear what they Re talking about and just stand like a dofus until they are done). Still, I think, again, that the problem here is with event flags. The game should accommodate the fact that you are the main character better, and let you more choices in these cases.


Like I don't mind them having their own little tangents and stories. What I mind is that our PC doesn't under any circumstance interfere in any meaningful way - like, you either have a) yes, kill them and b) no, let them live, where are the other options? Like 'let's question/torture this mofo' where our chosen backstory could play a part in it. For example - a criminal could say, 'let's torture them, cut off their fingers one by one, get more info out of them' meanwhile an acolyte of a good god would be like 'let's do it quick and end their suffering' (if you choose to question and then kill someone). There are so many ways our PC could meaningfully interject aside from: yes or no (and sometimes the very rare maybe).

And since our companions are always supposed to be watching us and judging us, where are their little interjections for when we do something they wholeheartedly disagree with? Like you see that they 'approve'/'disapprove' but it would be nice if they actually said something meaningful that would point as to why that is. Like as of now, at best, they throw some snarky one liners at you.
Originally Posted by Nicottia
Originally Posted by Abits
All true but all of these (with perhaps the gith encounter as the only exception) are not really big part of the story and are very similar to companions quests in other games. They are more extensive, but I think it's a plus rather than a minus. My only real issue is with Wyll's case, that gave me serious Dos2 vibes. It wasn't as bad as in dos 2 (let me remind you - you meet the dreamer and than the Red Prince not only takes over, you don't even hear what they Re talking about and just stand like a dofus until they are done). Still, I think, again, that the problem here is with event flags. The game should accommodate the fact that you are the main character better, and let you more choices in these cases.


Like I don't mind them having their own little tangents and stories. What I mind is that our PC doesn't under any circumstance interfere in any meaningful way - like, you either have a) yes, kill them and b) no, let them live, where are the other options? Like 'let's question/torture this mofo' where our chosen backstory could play a part in it. For example - a criminal could say, 'let's torture them, cut off their fingers one by one, get more info out of them' meanwhile an acolyte of a good god would be like 'let's do it quick and end their suffering' (if you choose to question and then kill someone). There are so many ways our PC could meaningfully interject aside from: yes or no (and sometimes the very rare maybe).

And since our companions are always supposed to be watching us and judging us, where are their little interjections for when we do something they wholeheartedly disagree with? Like you see that they 'approve'/'disapprove' but it would be nice if they actually said something meaningful that would point as to why that is. Like as of now, at best, they throw some snarky one liners at you.

I agree about player choice in dialogue. Not only there is too few of them, the game actively misleading you into thinking there are more options than what you actually have. If you have three dialogue options that lead to the same result, it's just deceptive and lame. But I don't think it's related to the companions, it's just poor dialogue writing
Honestly guys, maybe engaging with the dude who is churning out 70 posts a day isn't going to get you anywhere.

Originally Posted by Nicottia
Like I don't mind them having their own little tangents and stories. What I mind is that our PC doesn't under any circumstance interfere in any meaningful way - like, you either have a) yes, kill them and b) no, let them live, where are the other options? Like 'let's question/torture this mofo' where our chosen backstory could play a part in it. For example - a criminal could say, 'let's torture them, cut off their fingers one by one, get more info out of them' meanwhile an acolyte of a good god would be like 'let's do it quick and end their suffering' (if you choose to question and then kill someone). There are so many ways our PC could meaningfully interject aside from: yes or no (and sometimes the very rare maybe).


Really don't know if I want writing cycles spent on giving us brutal torture/mutilation scenes for each companion. I agree that some of it's a little stiff, like with Shadowheart and
the artefact
but I'm not sure if that's more just a lack of scenes or what. If you pickpocket it you can't question her about it more either.
Basically, there's two different, and related issues with the companions.

One is related to the small number of companions, the small party size and the current lack of any respec ability or multiclassing. This really limits flexibility. For example, if you do not play as a fighter (or maybe a ranger) you will pretty much have to bring Lae'zel along, whether you like her as a player, and regardless of whether your character would realistically be willing to travel with her. This is particularly acute because three of the five companions are basically evil, and the other two are not exactly good. And Larian (arguably wisely) decided to not gamify approval with gifts, meaning it's genuinely hard to keep the evil characters happy if you make good decisions. This should be solved eventually to some degree - though hopefully we will ultimately get more than 8 NPCs.

The second is related to the writing of the characters. I don't agree that they "need to be nicer." However, the companions are weird, particularly if you (as most people do) play a custom character rather than an origin. The companions are extremely overwritten in terms of their backstory - not only as companions, but as potential origin stories for the PC. I always look to Dragon Age:: Origins as an example that got things right here, insofar as you actually play your prologue, giving you a backstory, but giving you some agency within that backstory. But in general, there's just...too much...in the background of most of the characters for level 1 adventurers. Occasional banter while adventuring and boning aside, they also don't interact with one another very much. Often there's literally nothing to say to certain companions until you advance their personal quest. This is a problem, because it make the companions not feel like people, but like questlines/stories awkwardly ported into the game.

I also feel like while the backstories are incredibly fleshed out, the actual characters motivations are relatively opaque. Part of this is the weird decision on the part of Larian to make every companion a mystery box - which doesn't open for every companion in every runthrough. Some level of this is fine, but it also means unless you pay close attention to what a character approves and disapproves of, you don't really understand their worldview.

Finally, although the origins are quite...involved...they are also random - at least so far. You can generally go one of two ways with companion backstories. One is to have companions who are relatively shallow - like say in the BG series. Another example is characters who have a deep backstory which is tied into the main plot. Planescape: Torment is a good example here. If you have a deep backstory but it seems to be sort of random within the setting, you end up with...well...Fenris from Dragon Age 2, a character who just seems ported from a different game.
A reminder after reading through the past few pages, for everyone to remain civil, and to remember that someone else's opinion isn't inherently bad if it differs to yours, and it's not a problem to have different opinions. Don't take offence by it. Life online gets a lot easier once you get comfortable with the idea that you don't have to agree with everyone else, or rather... You absolutely will not agree with everything, for as long as you surround yourself with other people.

Remember that, and act accordingly. Think before typing.

Originally Posted by Telephasic
Basically, there's two different, and related issues with the companions.

One is related to the small number of companions, the small party size and the current lack of any respec ability or multiclassing. This really limits flexibility. For example, if you do not play as a fighter (or maybe a ranger) you will pretty much have to bring Lae'zel along, whether you like her as a player, and regardless of whether your character would realistically be willing to travel with her. This is particularly acute because three of the five companions are basically evil, and the other two are not exactly good. And Larian (arguably wisely) decided to not gamify approval with gifts, meaning it's genuinely hard to keep the evil characters happy if you make good decisions. This should be solved eventually to some degree - though hopefully we will ultimately get more than 8 NPCs.

The second is related to the writing of the characters. I don't agree that they "need to be nicer." However, the companions are weird, particularly if you (as most people do) play a custom character rather than an origin. The companions are extremely overwritten in terms of their backstory - not only as companions, but as potential origin stories for the PC. I always look to Dragon Age:: Origins as an example that got things right here, insofar as you actually play your prologue, giving you a backstory, but giving you some agency within that backstory. But in general, there's just...too much...in the background of most of the characters for level 1 adventurers. Occasional banter while adventuring and boning aside, they also don't interact with one another very much. Often there's literally nothing to say to certain companions until you advance their personal quest. This is a problem, because it make the companions not feel like people, but like questlines/stories awkwardly ported into the game.

I also feel like while the backstories are incredibly fleshed out, the actual characters motivations are relatively opaque. Part of this is the weird decision on the part of Larian to make every companion a mystery box - which doesn't open for every companion in every runthrough. Some level of this is fine, but it also means unless you pay close attention to what a character approves and disapproves of, you don't really understand their worldview.

Finally, although the origins are quite...involved...they are also random - at least so far. You can generally go one of two ways with companion backstories. One is to have companions who are relatively shallow - like say in the BG series. Another example is characters who have a deep backstory which is tied into the main plot. Planescape: Torment is a good example here. If you have a deep backstory but it seems to be sort of random within the setting, you end up with...well...Fenris from Dragon Age 2, a character who just seems ported from a different game.

I disagree with your first point. not with what you describe ("if you are not a fighter\ranger you have to take Lae'zel"), which is absolutely true, but the conclusions you draw from it. I think the settings of the game addresses your concern - you are in a very extreme situation, and even though you might not like each other, you need each other to survive because like it or not, you are in the same boat.

As for your second point - generally agree. I think the problem here, more than anything in the game itself, is with the marketing. if you play this game without knowing anything about it, you might discover a lot of things as the game seems to be intended. The best example is Astarion. The game builds the reveal of his true nature very slowly. first you might get small notes and might see him sneak out at night, then you find the drained boar, and then he tries to bite you and only then you are supposed to figure out he is a vampire. I think that would have worked really well if we didn't know he is a vampire for months and his picture with blood on his lips wasn't on the loading screen. stupid stupid stupid. same thing with wyll and shadowheart. to summarize, I think this is more of a pacing problem than a writing problem. we know so much about these characters from the get-go, it's just too much. If we compare it to Alistair, we don't know anything about him for (depending on how soon you reach redclif) potentially half the game. but when we do learn, there is a lot to learn, but we already got used to him, learned how he is as a character regardless of his backstory. here we have it backwards tons of backstory with very limited character.

Regarding the OPs post, many of the complaints I've seen are IMO are just complaining about Larian including people who've been excluded from public sphere before as not ideal/normal/sane/moral etc. into their game. They're basically just attacks aimed at people whose likenesses, gender, sexuality and other ways of being don't fit the norm the complainers are championing. The prime example being the "ugly masculine women" -type of threads mining into the vulnerabilities and pains of others not fitting the norm, or threads destined to railroad into "straight pride" -declarations. The kinda stuff that is prevalent in just about every cRPG social network. Generally you're demanded to take this stuff at face value, which is IMO just a way to normalize these types of violence.

Having said that, its sort of nice that my problem with the female companions(as always) was that they're not mean/authoritative/independent/contributing/equal/alive enough, which probably means I'm not qualified to speak outside the "neckbeard gang" of the consumer base. My view is that, if you don't see consumer culture others are invested in, as basically progressive/ethical/unproblematic, that means you're viewed as a regressive, troll, nuts etc. Assuming the worst is also is in line with the general, often warranted, paranoia of social interactions online/everywhere. So I'm just going to assume that I'm viewed as one of "them" and reiterate (parts of) my complaint as a musings of a regressive neckbeard, or worse.

But even though what I've been saying earlier is probably all just an inverted neckbeard antics, attempting to thirst after a male fantasy (domme-of-steel) version of John Hamm the dominator(and being special at the expense of others), it seems to me the women companions still cater too much to my "neckbeard customer base" e.g by reassuringly pitting (the only) two "mean" women at each others throats and repeatedly shoehorning them into the rescuee positions. I'm pretty sure, while being genuinely appalled by "the unbearable meanness of women in BG3", everyone at the neckbeard part of the stadium likes a good chick fight where female aggressions forms a closed, mostly non-threathening loop for men that on a fantasy level highlights the inability of women to work as a team without splintering to wantonly domineering warring factions a la the Drow in the Underdark etc.

Also, I don't think Shadowheart manages to "mean" her way far enough out of the reach of outdated stereotypes. Not at least based on what I've seen in chapter 1. Shadowheart has too much of that brainwashed cultist escapee -type feel(though to be fair, everyone in the party is basically a cultist escapee treated to the same career choice as Shadowheart because of the tadpole) to actually qualify as anything other than a "new" glazzy eyed version of the "doe-eyed waify" someone mentioned previously. I'd say this is especially so, if you can as a PC either rescue, or guide back to the loving care of her abusers/exploiters/murderers later in game. Maybe this scenario plays out as some sort of unconsumable poison pill version of the previous type of relationship, but I doubt it.

Anyways, stuff like this feels like Larian isn't trying hard enough to create anything new in this regard, but are just succumbing to the impulse of trying to please the broadest customer base possible while ignoring the problems of including stuff like this. But maybe the finished project somehow makes it work. Also, I'm not saying this might not work as a production guideline economically(it most likely will), but cynical nostalgia/repetition in the guise of novelty/progress seldom works well outside the box office.

Edit:Typos etc.


Originally Posted by Argonaut
Originally Posted by Bossk_Hogg

"These characters are poorly written" isnt a fact, and isnt even an argument. Plus you'll just whine about ad hominem, incorrectly say everything you cant counter is a fallacy, and ignore the substance of any challenge. Its what you "debate me you coward" types always do. So, keep typing up long responses that will amount to nothing.

Oh dear little man, you are not helping your case. Are you aware that this thread has more than one page and that there was discussion before you loudly burst in to measure the length of your member? I would have tried to conceal mine if it was so frail and lackluster. Go play somewhere else.

Originally Posted by robertthebard
Originally Posted by robertthebard
Originally Posted by Argonaut

Origin characters are bad. They are poorly designed, poorly written and poorly thought out. You can find reasons for this all over the forums. They where bad in DivOS2 but in BG3 they are absolutely trash tier.

Are you basing this on your inability to follow a narrative, or your inability to pick up on subtext?

I'm basing it on your inability to play the game without savescumming.


Citations needed. Oh, my bad, I mean, provide some evidence for my inability to play the game w/out save scumming.

You show me yours I'll show you mine baby.


You seem overly focused on others genitals. I mean.. if you wanna cyber, you can just ask.
I think the companions are great.

And for anyone with rose tinted glasses about BG2 companions, I would just like to remind you that (BG2 spoiler), the paladin in BG2, the paragon of virtue, never spent any time with his wife and child, and then when he found out she was having an affair, he had her executed.

Real nice guy.
Originally Posted by Abits
Originally Posted by Telephasic

The second is related to the writing of the characters. I don't agree that they "need to be nicer." However, the companions are weird, particularly if you (as most people do) play a custom character rather than an origin. The companions are extremely overwritten in terms of their backstory - not only as companions, but as potential origin stories for the PC. I always look to Dragon Age:: Origins as an example that got things right here, insofar as you actually play your prologue, giving you a backstory, but giving you some agency within that backstory. But in general, there's just...too much...in the background of most of the characters for level 1 adventurers. Occasional banter while adventuring and boning aside, they also don't interact with one another very much. Often there's literally nothing to say to certain companions until you advance their personal quest. This is a problem, because it make the companions not feel like people, but like questlines/stories awkwardly ported into the game.

I also feel like while the backstories are incredibly fleshed out, the actual characters motivations are relatively opaque. Part of this is the weird decision on the part of Larian to make every companion a mystery box - which doesn't open for every companion in every runthrough. Some level of this is fine, but it also means unless you pay close attention to what a character approves and disapproves of, you don't really understand their worldview.

Finally, although the origins are quite...involved...they are also random - at least so far. You can generally go one of two ways with companion backstories. One is to have companions who are relatively shallow - like say in the BG series. Another example is characters who have a deep backstory which is tied into the main plot. Planescape: Torment is a good example here. If you have a deep backstory but it seems to be sort of random within the setting, you end up with...well...Fenris from Dragon Age 2, a character who just seems ported from a different game.


As for your second point - generally agree. I think the problem here, more than anything in the game itself, is with the marketing. if you play this game without knowing anything about it, you might discover a lot of things as the game seems to be intended. The best example is Astarion. The game builds the reveal of his true nature very slowly. first you might get small notes and might see him sneak out at night, then you find the drained boar, and then he tries to bite you and only then you are supposed to figure out he is a vampire. I think that would have worked really well if we didn't know he is a vampire for months and his picture with blood on his lips wasn't on the loading screen. stupid stupid stupid. same thing with wyll and shadowheart. to summarize, I think this is more of a pacing problem than a writing problem. we know so much about these characters from the get-go, it's just too much. If we compare it to Alistair, we don't know anything about him for (depending on how soon you reach redclif) potentially half the game. but when we do learn, there is a lot to learn, but we already got used to him, learned how he is as a character regardless of his backstory. here we have it backwards tons of backstory with very limited character.



I tend to disagree, and I do think there is a problem with the writing. I for one didn't follow the marketing, and, believe it or not, I didn't know Astarion was a Vampire. Or whatever was up with Wyll or Shadowheart. That aside, let's focus for a moment on Astarion. So you find him, and maybe after some sort of misunderstanding you agree that it is better to work together. We both have a bloody tadpole crawling around in our head, and we both agree that we need to remove it, and that our best chance is to work together. Fair enough up to that point.
So what does he do? He sneaks up on you one night and tries to drain your blood. No matter what he says afterwards, he has proven that he is entirely untrustworthy. Given the situation I'm in, I'd kick him from the group. I have enough problems as it is, I don't need a Vampire in my group that I cannot trust (okey, that seems to be redundant).
As for the others, Wyll and Gale are completely overdone. Their backstories do not link up with what they actually can deliver. Shadowheart and Lae'zel are better in that regard, but swing between arrogance and rudeness. I don't expect them to be particularly nice to me, but given the situatuion, and the fact that we apparently agree that we are better off as a group, I expect something more civil.
So I do have a problem with the writing. So far it seems to me that Larian was trying to outdo what they had delivered in DOS and DOS 2, but they overshot the target.
Do remember that Larian have already said that, aside from having to work together to find a cure, there is little chance that the group would be travelling together.

Now I am not happy with the Companions from a romance perspective, and I think they are rather over-the-top in terms of backstory and quirks, but I can completely agree that they work as a disparate group who have nothing in common aside from hosting a tadpole. If you are wondering why they are in your party, then yes, that's a point that Larian have addressed.
Originally Posted by Sadurian
Do remember that Larian have already said that, aside from having to work together to find a cure, there is little chance that the group would be travelling together.

Now I am not happy with the Companions from a romance perspective, and I think they are rather over-the-top in terms of backstory and quirks, but I can completely agree that they work as a disparate group who have nothing in common aside from hosting a tadpole. If you are wondering why they are in your party, then yes, that's a point that Larian have addressed.
The romance now is probably just a placeholder to give us a taste in EA.
Originally Posted by Nyelin


I tend to disagree, and I do think there is a problem with the writing. I for one didn't follow the marketing, and, believe it or not, I didn't know Astarion was a Vampire. Or whatever was up with Wyll or Shadowheart. That aside, let's focus for a moment on Astarion. So you find him, and maybe after some sort of misunderstanding you agree that it is better to work together. We both have a bloody tadpole crawling around in our head, and we both agree that we need to remove it, and that our best chance is to work together. Fair enough up to that point.
So what does he do? He sneaks up on you one night and tries to drain your blood. No matter what he says afterwards, he has proven that he is entirely untrustworthy. Given the situation I'm in, I'd kick him from the group. I have enough problems as it is, I don't need a Vampire in my group that I cannot trust (okey, that seems to be redundant).
As for the others, Wyll and Gale are completely overdone. Their backstories do not link up with what they actually can deliver. Shadowheart and Lae'zel are better in that regard, but swing between arrogance and rudeness. I don't expect them to be particularly nice to me, but given the situatuion, and the fact that we apparently agree that we are better off as a group, I expect something more civil.
So I do have a problem with the writing. So far it seems to me that Larian was trying to outdo what they had delivered in DOS and DOS 2, but they overshot the target.


You can actually kick him from the group.
I mean, I'm complaining about companions because some of them are either bugged or very poorly written or just not implemented properly yet. Shadowheart is the perfect example I've been using for many reasons, but namely that regardless of what actions you take, what you say in dialogue, what character you create, she remains completely the same in the end:
Example #1 Attempting to save her on the ship gives you one nice response that suggests she'd be friendly, but then she reverts to the exact same character as if you didn't. Example #2 Maxing approval rating and picking "appropriate" dialogue responses throughout the entire gameplay leads to the exact same opinion no matter what. To expand on that, dialogue during her Shar stuff or whenever she glows yields responses that suggests she likes the PC, is friendly towards PC, shares almost the same opinions on things, etc., but then she reverts back to the same old Shadowheart and says, "You're not the company I'd keep." When you progress to the celebration, you're able to get cozy with her and she even says "You should have made a move sooner", but when? When she was telling you to screw off or that you're not someone she'd associate with? Then you spend the whole night talking and kiss, etc. only for her to, the next morning, say "That won't ever happen again" or continue to react to the PC in the EXACT same way.

Her build and stats are poorly done, there's not much to build upon with her yet, her attitude sucks and you can't build upon that at all, etc. Then the dice roll mechanic during dialogue only compounds the issues.

There's similar issues with all the companions with the best one thus far for development, response to choices, etc. seeming to be Gale. Then there's the limited number of companions with some merely expressing a desire for more than 8 because the 8 that we know of aren't up anyone's ally, but that's personal preference.
Originally Posted by Nyelin
Originally Posted by Abits
Originally Posted by Telephasic

The second is related to the writing of the characters. I don't agree that they "need to be nicer." However, the companions are weird, particularly if you (as most people do) play a custom character rather than an origin. The companions are extremely overwritten in terms of their backstory - not only as companions, but as potential origin stories for the PC. I always look to Dragon Age:: Origins as an example that got things right here, insofar as you actually play your prologue, giving you a backstory, but giving you some agency within that backstory. But in general, there's just...too much...in the background of most of the characters for level 1 adventurers. Occasional banter while adventuring and boning aside, they also don't interact with one another very much. Often there's literally nothing to say to certain companions until you advance their personal quest. This is a problem, because it make the companions not feel like people, but like questlines/stories awkwardly ported into the game.

I also feel like while the backstories are incredibly fleshed out, the actual characters motivations are relatively opaque. Part of this is the weird decision on the part of Larian to make every companion a mystery box - which doesn't open for every companion in every runthrough. Some level of this is fine, but it also means unless you pay close attention to what a character approves and disapproves of, you don't really understand their worldview.

Finally, although the origins are quite...involved...they are also random - at least so far. You can generally go one of two ways with companion backstories. One is to have companions who are relatively shallow - like say in the BG series. Another example is characters who have a deep backstory which is tied into the main plot. Planescape: Torment is a good example here. If you have a deep backstory but it seems to be sort of random within the setting, you end up with...well...Fenris from Dragon Age 2, a character who just seems ported from a different game.


As for your second point - generally agree. I think the problem here, more than anything in the game itself, is with the marketing. if you play this game without knowing anything about it, you might discover a lot of things as the game seems to be intended. The best example is Astarion. The game builds the reveal of his true nature very slowly. first you might get small notes and might see him sneak out at night, then you find the drained boar, and then he tries to bite you and only then you are supposed to figure out he is a vampire. I think that would have worked really well if we didn't know he is a vampire for months and his picture with blood on his lips wasn't on the loading screen. stupid stupid stupid. same thing with wyll and shadowheart. to summarize, I think this is more of a pacing problem than a writing problem. we know so much about these characters from the get-go, it's just too much. If we compare it to Alistair, we don't know anything about him for (depending on how soon you reach redclif) potentially half the game. but when we do learn, there is a lot to learn, but we already got used to him, learned how he is as a character regardless of his backstory. here we have it backwards tons of backstory with very limited character.



I tend to disagree, and I do think there is a problem with the writing. I for one didn't follow the marketing, and, believe it or not, I didn't know Astarion was a Vampire. Or whatever was up with Wyll or Shadowheart. That aside, let's focus for a moment on Astarion. So you find him, and maybe after some sort of misunderstanding you agree that it is better to work together. We both have a bloody tadpole crawling around in our head, and we both agree that we need to remove it, and that our best chance is to work together. Fair enough up to that point.
So what does he do? He sneaks up on you one night and tries to drain your blood. No matter what he says afterwards, he has proven that he is entirely untrustworthy. Given the situation I'm in, I'd kick him from the group. I have enough problems as it is, I don't need a Vampire in my group that I cannot trust (okey, that seems to be redundant).
As for the others, Wyll and Gale are completely overdone. Their backstories do not link up with what they actually can deliver. Shadowheart and Lae'zel are better in that regard, but swing between arrogance and rudeness. I don't expect them to be particularly nice to me, but given the situatuion, and the fact that we apparently agree that we are better off as a group, I expect something more civil.
So I do have a problem with the writing. So far it seems to me that Larian was trying to outdo what they had delivered in DOS and DOS 2, but they overshot the target.

About Astarion - okey then. maybe I trusted him since I felt I have a plot armor or maybe because I believed him, dunno. but I think it was worth it.

about the rest of them - "Their backstories do not link up with what they actually can deliver" if you mean they are not like a level 1 characters, I'm sorry but whatever man. I know a lot of people care about that but I simply don't. If that is your only problem with them, we can agree to disagree. about them being overdone - again I don't see it at all. Gale is a bit of an arrogant bastard but a likable one. Wyll is completely fine, and I didn't even get into a situation I discover much about his backstory. In most of my playthrough, he completely kept his front of a goblin sleyer hero

About manners - welcome to the wilderness I guess? some people are rude... I don't see the problem. I actually think Laezel gets a bad rep in that regard, because she is very bitchy, but also explains a lot of the lore of the gith and the mind flayers over the course of the game, rather patiently. She is not different at all from characters like Candarous ordo, she is just younger and stupider and not in a teen game. about Shadowheart - she is much like Morrigan, and I don't see much difference aside from the context in which you find her. I imagine that Morrigan with a tadpole in her head would act very similarly (and if you want to say I'm wrong just remember the time she was so paranoid she sent you to kill her dragon mother).

I don't think the companions in DOS2 were so bad for that matter, I just wish they were given more respect from the game designers and that their scenarios were more fluid and not mutually exclusive.

I like the companions but feel a little sexually harassed by the male characters. Why are they always hitting on me! I mean I consider myself a pretty open minded person but give it a rest guys. I have taken to only playing with the female characters (who hate me but at least aren't constantly putting the moves on me) for this reason, with the exception of the rogue, but I never engage him in conversation anymore...
Originally Posted by Nicottia
Originally Posted by robertthebard
Are we playing the same game? Both of my Drow have had Drow specific dialog. Maybe your version is earlier than mine, and my choices were added later? One of the lines was akin to "If you see red eyes, run", when talking to one of the Tiefling children in the Grove.

Again, however, I don't want Larian writing a backstory for my custom characters, and I'm still really amazed at how many people here seem to not only want it, but need it?


Did you even read what I wrote or just skimmed through it looking for keywords?

Ugh, I did write that the race and class do come up in dialogues. But unless you missed it, you can choose your background:

[Linked Image]

This is my main source of complaint as it never comes up in dialogue.

So it's there but unused. Totally pointless.


I think you should make your point about the backstory for custom characters in a separate thread, just so it's not lost. It is a pretty good idea that Larian hopefully adds to in the game up.
If you like all the companions, then enjoy.

Wyll and Gale are good company...Larian would require an outside consultant to make a good female character.

A consultant complete with decision making power.

However, based on what I have seen, I would not trust anyone at Larian to have the discernment to select a viable consultant.
Originally Posted by robertthebard
Originally Posted by Nyelin


I tend to disagree, and I do think there is a problem with the writing. I for one didn't follow the marketing, and, believe it or not, I didn't know Astarion was a Vampire. Or whatever was up with Wyll or Shadowheart. That aside, let's focus for a moment on Astarion. So you find him, and maybe after some sort of misunderstanding you agree that it is better to work together. We both have a bloody tadpole crawling around in our head, and we both agree that we need to remove it, and that our best chance is to work together. Fair enough up to that point.
So what does he do? He sneaks up on you one night and tries to drain your blood. No matter what he says afterwards, he has proven that he is entirely untrustworthy. Given the situation I'm in, I'd kick him from the group. I have enough problems as it is, I don't need a Vampire in my group that I cannot trust (okey, that seems to be redundant).
As for the others, Wyll and Gale are completely overdone. Their backstories do not link up with what they actually can deliver. Shadowheart and Lae'zel are better in that regard, but swing between arrogance and rudeness. I don't expect them to be particularly nice to me, but given the situatuion, and the fact that we apparently agree that we are better off as a group, I expect something more civil.
So I do have a problem with the writing. So far it seems to me that Larian was trying to outdo what they had delivered in DOS and DOS 2, but they overshot the target.


You can actually kick him from the group.


Yep, i know. I kicked him in one playthrough because I had a shit day. The point is really that I keep him in the group for metagaming reasons: I want to see how this plays out.
Most of them are people I wouldn't want to travel with normally (except Laezel. Tell me how stupid I ammmm yesssd). But when the situation is dire you take what you can get. Laezel specifically seems like very reasonable to keep since the mind flayers are her mortal enemies
Originally Posted by Argonaut

No. That is the point that people who defend them feel the need to hang on to because everything else has to do with comparative quality to older games as well as written work in which case they don't even scratch the surface of professional writing or characters. People who do not like the companions, such as myself, do not like them because they are poorly written. For a large part this can be attributed to the schizophrenic nature of origin characters as having to be main characters even when they are just sidekicks. Do you know a person in real life that is so self centered and yet people love and adore them and never criticize them? Do you know someone that tries to steal the spotlight and make everything about themselves and constantly complain in real life that is fun to be around?

So you treat people at your job like dirt then? Don't be so infantile. Not only are there countless examples of how people can come together under extreme duress despite being extremely different and not behave like spoiled children. Victims of trauma also do not manifest the same response and pushing people away or taking your problems out on other people is universally considered to be in poor taste but more importantly is scientifically known to be a self destructive desire that has nothing to do with your trauma or experiences and has a lot more to do with a sense of self loathing and self destructiveness. I'm sure you have heard of Sherlock Holmes and his opioid habit? Clinical Psychiatrists and neuroscientists often describe the addiction to these extreme attitude as "seeking oblivion". I can give you examples of these kind of characters done in a multitude of different ways that are far superior including examples from older games but I've done it so many times already in the brief time that I've been on this board that I've already burned out and if you are really that interested for my take feel free to PM me.

You've never seen pictures of WWI soldiers in the trenches playing with cats or smiling or playing cards? Breaking down and being an insufferable detractor of everyone around you is not healthy and it is not something that inspires sympathy. We have to like these characters and in fact Larian is making it almost obligatory to play with them as companions. Why would they choose to write them in such a way that makes them insufferable. Completely ignoring how poorly written and one dimensional they are these characters could be written to be much more sympathetic or at least motivate you to care about them without making them mary sues that you are forced upon you. The same messages and themes could be delivered while only changing their attitude to make a far superior experience.

With all of that out of the way consider if you where in a life threatening situation of a similar nature. Let's say you suspect you have carbon monoxide poisoning. This WILL kill you slowly. Would you run away from people and every time someone tried to help you shout at them, demean them and so on or would you try to be polite and explain the situation and seek their help? Would you then try to sleep with them out of nowhere?

Written exquisitely compared to what? Even ignoring everything else I've said so far please give an example to compare them to as a basis seeing as your analysis of them and the writing is only skin deep.

Of course we want to complain. Larian decided they wanted to fill the shoes of BG with a sequel no one asked for that has no continuity and nothing to do with the previous games in the series. You better believe they've got to knock this one out of the park of they are going to make a lot of people extremely angry and alienated with them.



Dude, even if I don't share the complaining about the current companions I never called anyone "infantile" nor I presumed anything about anyone. I'll ask you to do the same.
To answer your points:

1) I don't think they are poorly written and what you are saying is that you don't find them likeable because they are too self-centred, which is exactly my point. As I said, "I can understand someone not liking the personality of a character, fair enough, but not liking it without considering the context is a weak argumentation." No one likes a "look at me, I'm important" character, the thing I think is missing from your argumentation is again, context. Of course they are self-centred at the beginning of the adventure, you are all strangers to one another and the only people you have a notion of is yourselves. You are going to talk about you and focus on your personal objectives, not asking "how was your day darling?". As the game progresses and you open up to one another, things are gonna change, in fact they change even before the end of act one, as I mentioned.

2) Do you really think the usual job environment is a good comparison with having a living parasite inside you who is going to end you at any moment? If their behaviour will stay like that for weeks or months after the discovery that the tadpole is in stasis and they are in no immediate danger then I will agree they are reacting in a poor way, but the events of the EA take place in just a couple of days after the abduction, their stress and bad reaction are more than justified. Sure, you could've wished for more positive characters capable of handling stress better, but suggesting that SH selfishness in this context is unrealistic is to be blind, in my opinion.

3) Again, me suspecting of having carbon monoxide poisoning that will kill me slowly in the real world is not the same of having a tadpole in your head who is going to rip your organs after a couple of days. In the real world, in case of poisoning, I will not be in a good mood for sure, but at least I know there are doctors who are going to reassure and take care of me, it is all another story than having a tadpole you can't get rid of and with the only known "medic" of the place missing (you find Halsin only near the end of EA). It's an RPG, people should try to imaging themselves in the world, characters and CONTEXT.

4) I don't know what kind of example do you want honestly. I find them written exquisitely because they are *believable* when you are talking to them. I can't say if their stories are well written because I know only the tip of the iceberg since we are still in EA, but I know they feel alive like few other both in the good and the bad.

5) A company doesn't create a game only because "people are asking for it", besides, the fact that there are people in this forum who have bought EA means that there are people who wanted the game. If you think a game called "BG3" doesn't deserve to be played because it has no connection (for now) with the previous title just don't play it. Of course, you can criticise some aspects of it (even I think BG story-arc should have stayed untouched and this game should have been called with another name), as I said there are a lot of good criticisms in this forum, but they must be valid, and constructive. Saying "I don't like the characters because they are rude" is a valid opinion but not a criticism. You can criticise how a character backstory is written because is inconsistent or full of cliché (for example I agree they feel all to important to be lvl one characters), but you can't criticise a character just because you don't like its *attitude* more so when said attitude is coherent with the context. You can say "I personally don't like mean character", and it will be a respectable opinion, not "I personally don't like mean character, therefore Larian has written them badly".

P.S: The subject "you" I'm using is a general "you", not a "you-you" laugh


Originally Posted by Nicottia
Argonaut, you are my hero of these forums really, I agree with about 99% of stuff you have written in most of the topics you have participated in.

Now, to add to this conversation, I think people dislike the companions cause more often than not they steal all the spotlight. I wish that Larian would drop the entire idea of origin stories, as I have said it many times before, or keep them confined to DOS games only, they have absolutely no reason hamfisting them into BG series. Period.

Hell, I don't really hate a single one of them. I understand that they are each different people caught in difficult circumstances forcing them to work together. But they do need to work on their sympathetic skills a bit more. The only one who could possibly get away being the major pain in the butt is Lae'zel, her being a githyanki and all that. She sees all the races of Faerun as inferior, and it shows. At least she's honest about that. Also, the circumstances you meet each of the companions under is pretty bit weird, Astarion being indeed a shining example among all of them. There should indeed be a way for the others you have recruited to at least REACT to him pulling a knife on us. They don't have to help, but at least react, say something. It's not that much to ask for, is it?

And speaking of our PC, Larian could implement such a simple fix for our lack of any visible backstory, well we do have backgrounds - acolyte, noble and so on. But they never come up in dialogue. I played as a seldarine drow acolyte cleric of Eilistraee on my first run, on my 2nd I went with high elven wizard noble. Now the racial and class dialogues come up often, but the 'background' never does. Never. My newest character is a drow warlock of the old ones, with the entertainer background, and I can already predict that the entertainer background will never ever come up in dialogue. I mean, is it really so hard to implement the backgrounds as some sort of backstories for our PCs? Like hell, Larian could give us 2 options even as to what you did via dialogue like it was done in POE, and people would not complain as much about our PCs being a full empty blank slate. Hell, I wouldn't complain anymore. Our PCs backstory doesn't have to as grand as the origin characters' one, but at least make it matter a little bit more.


You see, you agree with Argonaut but I find your complaint a lot more valid than his, no offence for him intended.
They need to work on their social skills? Absolutely. Does it mean they are non-believable as characters? I think not, not a bit.
Should they react more when some cutscenes occur? Absolutely, but I think this is an oversight in the script of those specific scenes because in others they respond correctly, for example SH reaction when you free Lae'zel.
Should our PC feels like having a more solid BG in order not to be outshined from the origins ones? Hard to negate, and your suggestions are more than valid.

Originally Posted by Nicottia

Do you really want me to talk about how special Gale is and how his entire backstory not only steals the spotlight of the PC, but he's so damn special that he needs a contingency plan for when he dies (what given his backstory makes sense ofc)?

The man, the legend, the second coming of Elminster and Khelben, man who is on par with the greatest wizards ever known because he was a chosen of Mystra, he made love to a goddess but clearly, his lovemaking skills weren't enough for the goddess dumped him, so he got stuck trying to woo her back by getting that big bad Netherese time bomb stuck in his chest, requiring him to suck magic or it goes boom super sonic.


Gale's backstory is presented as waaaaay over the top. I think he is one of the best-acted companions and maybe the most likeable but I must admit you are right on this, he's story seems like a fanfic
(unless he was f*****g a succubus disguising herself as Mystra revealing he is, in fact, just a mediocre wizard, this will be the plot twist!)



Originally Posted by Worm

edit: As for the topic at hand. I really think it's just ruby tinted glasses. People remember BG1 and BG2 really fondly and likely played them when they were younger and more forgiving of things. Now they've built up amazing unmeetable standards for what they want in the game and the characters have fallen short. Now they're going to fight tooth and nail because somehow they really believe they're going to trigger Larian to do emergency rewrites or something.

This idea that Shadowheart is some terrible character and Morrigan is some amazing piece of writing is some kind of really personal opinion. It's valid to the person who feels this way, but it's clearly steeped in bias. Same thing for Astarion being dumb and Edwin being some amazing layered character.


Originally Posted by Bossk_Hogg
Originally Posted by FrostyFardragon
People generally come to forums to complain about something. The people who are happy with the companions are much less likely to post than people who have an axe to grind.


This. Add in the neckbeard factor because a female character dares to be anything but a doe eyed waifu and, well...

Maybe they can add in some mute companions for those who cant handle anything beyond Tolkeinesque low fantasy dirt farmers. The dwarf from the hag's hut can be your bog standard dwarven fighter. Maybe he can say "it if aint dwarven, its crap" in a scottish accent! Oho! That was funny 40 years ago and certainly still holds up! Add in an elven ranger, a hobbit thief, and an old wizard (really just Gale with a beard) and a passive cute female life cleric. Give Tav an amulet that has the narrator intone "You're a special boy! Not only are you special, but you're the MOST special, and no one else is special!". They can click it whenever they need the validation. Then the grandpa crowd can shut up and get to Denny's for their senior specials.


Not to invalidate any other criticisms but you're probably on spot my friends.

Originally Posted by Abits
Most of them are people I wouldn't want to travel with normally (except Laezel. Tell me how stupid I ammmm yesssd). But when the situation is dire you take what you can get.



This. I to find most of them irritating but I'm sticking with them because I need them to survive. This doesn't mean they are poorly written or unbelievable, just they have an attitude I don't like.



EDIT: I edited this post with all the quotes instead of writing many different ones.
<3
I couldn't care less about character interaction - I booted the vampire from my camp at the first opportunity, and it had nothing to do with him being a vamp wink
Originally Posted by Nyelin
Originally Posted by robertthebard
Originally Posted by Nyelin


I tend to disagree, and I do think there is a problem with the writing. I for one didn't follow the marketing, and, believe it or not, I didn't know Astarion was a Vampire. Or whatever was up with Wyll or Shadowheart. That aside, let's focus for a moment on Astarion. So you find him, and maybe after some sort of misunderstanding you agree that it is better to work together. We both have a bloody tadpole crawling around in our head, and we both agree that we need to remove it, and that our best chance is to work together. Fair enough up to that point.
So what does he do? He sneaks up on you one night and tries to drain your blood. No matter what he says afterwards, he has proven that he is entirely untrustworthy. Given the situation I'm in, I'd kick him from the group. I have enough problems as it is, I don't need a Vampire in my group that I cannot trust (okey, that seems to be redundant).
As for the others, Wyll and Gale are completely overdone. Their backstories do not link up with what they actually can deliver. Shadowheart and Lae'zel are better in that regard, but swing between arrogance and rudeness. I don't expect them to be particularly nice to me, but given the situatuion, and the fact that we apparently agree that we are better off as a group, I expect something more civil.
So I do have a problem with the writing. So far it seems to me that Larian was trying to outdo what they had delivered in DOS and DOS 2, but they overshot the target.


You can actually kick him from the group.


Yep, i know. I kicked him in one playthrough because I had a shit day. The point is really that I keep him in the group for metagaming reasons: I want to see how this plays out.

Nothing wrong with that. I could come up with a ton of RP reasons to keep him, even if I don't trust him. Resource management, for one, if he's a better lockpicker than I am. I also don't have any reason to really trust him on some of the characters I may play. Just one example would be "we must find a way to control it" instead of going straight to "get this thing out of my head". For those characters, there is an option to reject him outright, on the spot, I believe? That said, some of my characters will, undoubtedly, be right there with him on learning to control it, and use it for my own ends.

However, not liking a character doesn't have to equate to bad writing. In fact, not liking a character can come down to good writing. I don't know enough about any of the companions to say for sure, at this point in the game. My prime example for this will always be Alistair in Dragon Age. I despise him as a person. I really do. However, I love the fact that David Gaider could write him in such a way that he garners that vitriol from me. It is, however, entirely possible to play about 3/4 of the game before you get to where he showed his true colors to me, on the way in to Redcliffe. The point being, that there may well be redeeming qualities in any or all of these companions, and we'll never know if we just let first impressions rule whether we keep them or not. I really think there should be a dialog about Astarion with the rest of the party to the effect of "we can't trust him, because vampire, but we need him if we're going to get rid of these tadpoles", or, something completely opposite of that if we're going to remove him. It's not a "hey, you have to like x" thing either. Nothing could be further from the truth. It's more of a "we really don't know much about any of them, and we're not in a position where we're going to learn much in what we have" thing, and as with my position on the setting's feel, we're deliberately placed in such a way as to not spoil a lot of what's to come. It may well come to pass that some of them are irredeemable, and I sincerely hope that this is the case. "Bringing everyone to the light" is way too tropey to keep happening all the time, and it would be a refreshing change of pace, sort of like Morrigan.
Originally Posted by robertthebard
Originally Posted by Nyelin
Originally Posted by robertthebard
Originally Posted by Nyelin


I tend to disagree, and I do think there is a problem with the writing. I for one didn't follow the marketing, and, believe it or not, I didn't know Astarion was a Vampire. Or whatever was up with Wyll or Shadowheart. That aside, let's focus for a moment on Astarion. So you find him, and maybe after some sort of misunderstanding you agree that it is better to work together. We both have a bloody tadpole crawling around in our head, and we both agree that we need to remove it, and that our best chance is to work together. Fair enough up to that point.
So what does he do? He sneaks up on you one night and tries to drain your blood. No matter what he says afterwards, he has proven that he is entirely untrustworthy. Given the situation I'm in, I'd kick him from the group. I have enough problems as it is, I don't need a Vampire in my group that I cannot trust (okey, that seems to be redundant).
As for the others, Wyll and Gale are completely overdone. Their backstories do not link up with what they actually can deliver. Shadowheart and Lae'zel are better in that regard, but swing between arrogance and rudeness. I don't expect them to be particularly nice to me, but given the situatuion, and the fact that we apparently agree that we are better off as a group, I expect something more civil.
So I do have a problem with the writing. So far it seems to me that Larian was trying to outdo what they had delivered in DOS and DOS 2, but they overshot the target.


You can actually kick him from the group.


Yep, i know. I kicked him in one playthrough because I had a shit day. The point is really that I keep him in the group for metagaming reasons: I want to see how this plays out.

Nothing wrong with that. I could come up with a ton of RP reasons to keep him, even if I don't trust him. Resource management, for one, if he's a better lockpicker than I am. I also don't have any reason to really trust him on some of the characters I may play. Just one example would be "we must find a way to control it" instead of going straight to "get this thing out of my head". For those characters, there is an option to reject him outright, on the spot, I believe? That said, some of my characters will, undoubtedly, be right there with him on learning to control it, and use it for my own ends.

However, not liking a character doesn't have to equate to bad writing. In fact, not liking a character can come down to good writing. I don't know enough about any of the companions to say for sure, at this point in the game. My prime example for this will always be Alistair in Dragon Age. I despise him as a person. I really do. However, I love the fact that David Gaider could write him in such a way that he garners that vitriol from me. It is, however, entirely possible to play about 3/4 of the game before you get to where he showed his true colors to me, on the way in to Redcliffe. The point being, that there may well be redeeming qualities in any or all of these companions, and we'll never know if we just let first impressions rule whether we keep them or not. I really think there should be a dialog about Astarion with the rest of the party to the effect of "we can't trust him, because vampire, but we need him if we're going to get rid of these tadpoles", or, something completely opposite of that if we're going to remove him. It's not a "hey, you have to like x" thing either. Nothing could be further from the truth. It's more of a "we really don't know much about any of them, and we're not in a position where we're going to learn much in what we have" thing, and as with my position on the setting's feel, we're deliberately placed in such a way as to not spoil a lot of what's to come. It may well come to pass that some of them are irredeemable, and I sincerely hope that this is the case. "Bringing everyone to the light" is way too tropey to keep happening all the time, and it would be a refreshing change of pace, sort of like Morrigan.

Yep this. Dragon Age Origins should always be your go-to when discussing how good companions should be.
I just want have friend like Deekin!
Originally Posted by Sharet

Dude, even if I don't share the complaining about the current companions I never called anyone "infantile" nor I presumed anything about anyone. I'll ask you to do the same.

You presumed plenty. Do not pass judgement if you do not want to receive it.

Originally Posted by Sharet
1) I don't think they are poorly written and what you are saying is that you don't find them likeable because they are too self-centred, which is exactly my point. As I said, "I can understand someone not liking the personality of a character, fair enough, but not liking it without considering the context is a weak argumentation." No one likes a "look at me, I'm important" character, the thing I think is missing from your argumentation is again, context. Of course they are self-centred at the beginning of the adventure, you are all strangers to one another and the only people you have a notion of is yourselves. You are going to talk about you and focus on your personal objectives, not asking "how was your day darling?". As the game progresses and you open up to one another, things are gonna change, in fact they change even before the end of act one, as I mentioned.

If it is so self evident why did you not directly address the examples given and completely ignore the two established scientific areas of study that contradict their behavior as well as demonstrating that people have varied responses to these stimuli? This factor alone can be used to defend that they are poorly written as their characters and context are not taken into account when considering their reactions and behavior. We have credible and proven scientific data to back this up.

Furthermore no. Not everyone is self centered and once again making everyone self centered diminishes the variety of characterization, is ignorant of context and other factors, and diminishes the quality of writing by it's very nature. Claiming that people are automatically self centered around strangers is absolutely ludicrous as even by examining common language you can find evidence that this is not the case from expressions such as "good samaritan". Again, we have scientific research into this and while it is not impossible the choice to not explore other avenues or write other reactions diminishes variety and characterization thereby detracting from the quality of the writing.

Originally Posted by Sharet
2) Do you really think the usual job environment is a good comparison with having a living parasite inside you who is going to end you at any moment? If their behaviour will stay like that for weeks or months after the discovery that the tadpole is in stasis and they are in no immediate danger then I will agree they are reacting in a poor way, but the events of the EA take place in just a couple of days after the abduction, their stress and bad reaction are more than justified. Sure, you could've wished for more positive characters capable of handling stress better, but suggesting that SH selfishness in this context is unrealistic is to be blind, in my opinion.

I already addressed this. We have scientific evidence and study to back up a multitude of valid reactions and we understanding a lot of the reasons for it. This being left out diminshes the quality and characterization through homogenuity thereby automatically decreasing the quality of the writing. To put this in laymans terms, all the characters being samey is evidence of poor writing.

Originally Posted by Sharet
3) Again, me suspecting of having carbon monoxide poisoning that will kill me slowly in the real world is not the same of having a tadpole in your head who is going to rip your organs after a couple of days. In the real world, in case of poisoning, I will not be in a good mood for sure, but at least I know there are doctors who are going to reassure and take care of me, it is all another story than having a tadpole you can't get rid of and with the only known "medic" of the place missing (you find Halsin only near the end of EA). It's an RPG, people should try to imaging themselves in the world, characters and CONTEXT.

You are right, carbon monoxide poisoning is infinitely more terrifying. Nothing you said responded to the question I asked. The reason you are presenting this argument is because I gave you the diagnosis but in reality all you would feel is extreme nausea, headaches, dizziness etc which can be attributed to a multitude of problems many of which doctors do not have a sure fire way of fixing. I was a soldier, I do not need to imagine, I have been there. I have had these experiences. It is not justification for the lack of characterization and variety which ignores scientific research and evidence.

Originally Posted by Sharet
4) I don't know what kind of example do you want honestly. I find them written exquisitely because they are *believable* when you are talking to them. I can't say if their stories are well written because I know only the tip of the iceberg since we are still in EA, but I know they feel alive like few other both in the good and the bad.

I'm not sure what you want me to say. You cannot give me examples which means there either aren't any or you do not know the technicalities behind writing standard which is even worse. I can link you to articles regarding the characterization of characters if you want but honestly at this point I'm pretty much committed to making an in depth analysis of this so I'd rather wait for you to provide me with some kind of evidence until that time.

Originally Posted by Sharet
5) A company doesn't create a game only because "people are asking for it", besides, the fact that there are people in this forum who have bought EA means that there are people who wanted the game. If you think a game called "BG3" doesn't deserve to be played because it has no connection (for now) with the previous title just don't play it.

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/marketing-fraud.asp#:~:text=What%20Is%20Marketing%20Fraud%3F,article%2C%20and%20hiding%20side%20effects.
https://dcba.lacounty.gov/portfolio/false-advertising/
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/b/brand-recognition.asp
I think those would be interesting reads and well worth your time. Also what I said was that a game called BG3 has big shoes to fill on account of it's brand recognition as well as the finality on which the series closed while drawing attention to the fact that there is no connection and therefor no reason to call it the third part of a series other than brand recognition. Do not twist my words to suit your argument.

Originally Posted by Sharet
Of course, you can criticise some aspects of it (even I think BG story-arc should have stayed untouched and this game should have been called with another name), as I said there are a lot of good criticisms in this forum, but they must be valid, and constructive. Saying "I don't like the characters because they are rude" is a valid opinion but not a criticism.

Again, this is not what I said. I said that these characters are poorly written when compared to previous iterations of the series as well as when compared with other works of fiction that are considered to be of high standard. I said that "the characters are mean" is a very minor complaint which has some basis in criticism regarding characterization but that more often than not it is the only thing defenders of the writing hold onto(such as you are doing) because they feel it is easily debunked(it isn't) and thereby refutes the other arguments as well.

Please, stop twisting my words. It is presumptuous of you and you have already complained about this.

Originally Posted by Sharet
You can criticise how a character backstory is written because is inconsistent or full of cliché (for example I agree they feel all to important to be lvl one characters), but you can't criticise a character just because you don't like its *attitude* more so when said attitude is coherent with the context. You can say "I personally don't like mean character", and it will be a respectable opinion, not "I personally don't like mean character, therefore Larian has written them badly".

I didn't criticize it because I don't like it, I criticized it because it doesn't work well. Furthermore, why did you dilute the argument about them being main characters while also being side characters into "I think they are mean so they are poorly written" yet again and ignore the actual argument? You are being intellectually dishonest.

You did not address any criticism other than "they are mean" which wasn't part of my argument, ignored evidence and failed to present your own, and made many presumptions as well as twisting and misrepresenting my words to suit your argument. Maybe you did not do so intentionally, I don't know, but I will advise you that this does not work on me.

1.) Theres too few of them, you only have 3 spots to fil but 5 people to choose from and if you want a party of cool likeable characters you're shit out of luck.
2.) They are overly integrated into the experience. Too much work and detail has gone into making the characters.
3.) #2 is why we have #1
4.) If you think there will be more companions you will be sorely disapointed.
I think my only complaint when it comes to the companions is the initial encounter with Astarion. I do not particularly like the only options of him placing a knife at my throat, then a wrestling match only to become "friends" or "companions." Personally I feel the PC should have additional options that do not end in a knife to the throat and then becoming besties.

Additionally, I find it odd that with the exception of Lae'zel and Shadowheart, you do not see any of the companions on the ship. Gale recalls seeing you on the ship, but where was he during all of this? Why can we not free Shadowheart or meet additional companions on the ship if we are all on the same ship together. This seems rather odd to me.

With the other companions, I can see why they are the way they are, and it does not bother me once you dig a bit deeper into their actual character. Gale seems to have a superiority complex, but it goes with his background as being a prodigal wizard. Probably akin to him being better than most his whole life or having other privilege's (if that's even the case).

Shadowheart comes off in such a way that it may be interpreted as her being rude/mean etc. When looking at her closer you can see its just a front and she does it so others wont get to close/pry etc.

Lae'zel comes from a different place altogether and their rules and customs are vastly different, so I do not expect my character to understand where she is coming from, much like I do not expect her to know where I am coming from either. On a side note, I find it humorous that there are several dialogues with other NPC's regarding noses, or lack their of.

Wyll is the "hero" in mind at least and tells you his intentions as it comes to the Goblins. He wants to kill them all and should be expected to act in such away to these enemies.

Larian mentioned the other characters would be their own beings and do things when the PC is not around, so its not to hard to see why some characters act a certain way or do certain things in game.

Someone mentioned the Gur and Astarion becoming upset about it. This makes total sense because of who and what Astarion is, and what this Gur or Monster Hunter represents to him.

Personally I expect the other characters to have their own personalities and make varying decisions because this is an RPG styled game. If you were playing 5e or any other table top styled game, the DM would have the NPC's make varying statements and decisions that you would not agree with, but that is part of their charm/frustration. Not everything will go smoothly.

Lastly, on my various playthroughs, I have yet to see the other members of the party get together and say something along the lines of "You are the PC and our de facto leader here on out."

We as a PC have to learn to trust the other parties and in turn they have to learn to trust us. We do not know one another, but it seems like other people expect the characters to follow you blindly.
Originally Posted by DrNikolai
I think my only complaint when it comes to the companions is the initial encounter with Astarion. I do not particularly like the only options of him placing a knife at my throat, then a wrestling match only to become "friends" or "companions." Personally I feel the PC should have additional options that do not end in a knife to the throat and then becoming besties.

Additionally, I find it odd that with the exception of Lae'zel and Shadowheart, you do not see any of the companions on the ship. Gale recalls seeing you on the ship, but where was he during all of this? Why can we not free Shadowheart or meet additional companions on the ship if we are all on the same ship together. This seems rather odd to me.

With the other companions, I can see why they are the way they are, and it does not bother me once you dig a bit deeper into their actual character. Gale seems to have a superiority complex, but it goes with his background as being a prodigal wizard. Probably akin to him being better than most his whole life or having other privilege's (if that's even the case).

Shadowheart comes off in such a way that it may be interpreted as her being rude/mean etc. When looking at her closer you can see its just a front and she does it so others wont get to close/pry etc.

Lae'zel comes from a different place altogether and their rules and customs are vastly different, so I do not expect my character to understand where she is coming from, much like I do not expect her to know where I am coming from either. On a side note, I find it humorous that there are several dialogues with other NPC's regarding noses, or lack their of.

Wyll is the "hero" in mind at least and tells you his intentions as it comes to the Goblins. He wants to kill them all and should be expected to act in such away to these enemies.

Larian mentioned the other characters would be their own beings and do things when the PC is not around, so its not to hard to see why some characters act a certain way or do certain things in game.

Someone mentioned the Gur and Astarion becoming upset about it. This makes total sense because of who and what Astarion is, and what this Gur or Monster Hunter represents to him.

Personally I expect the other characters to have their own personalities and make varying decisions because this is an RPG styled game. If you were playing 5e or any other table top styled game, the DM would have the NPC's make varying statements and decisions that you would not agree with, but that is part of their charm/frustration. Not everything will go smoothly.

Lastly, on my various playthroughs, I have yet to see the other members of the party get together and say something along the lines of "You are the PC and our de facto leader here on out."

We as a PC have to learn to trust the other parties and in turn they have to learn to trust us. We do not know one another, but it seems like other people expect the characters to follow you blindly.

I've only had the knife to the throat once in 4 goes. So the options are there, you just didn't get it. How many times have you had this interaction with him? If it's only one, then how can you say there are no other options, and if it's multiple, but you're using the same dialog option every time, how can you say there are no other ways for that to turn out?
Originally Posted by DrNikolai

Additionally, I find it odd that with the exception of Lae'zel and Shadowheart, you do not see any of the companions on the ship. Gale recalls seeing you on the ship, but where was he during all of this? Why can we not free Shadowheart or meet additional companions on the ship if we are all on the same ship together. This seems rather odd to me.


I'm actually pretty sure you run into Gale on the ship. He's out of it on the surface of the ship, near where the thralls are firing the canons. You can't really interact with him at that time however.
There are loads of pods hanging in the background in some of the scenes on the ship. I guess the others were in some of those.
Quote
I to have found Shadowheart talking to me like shit after our kiss, but remember that in this early access a lot of conversations are screwed up both in timing and context, they are going to fix it.

I had Shadowheart ree-ing at me after failing a pursuasion check to convince her that I was okay with her Shar worship, then immediatly shoot into flirty mode when I asked her about our kiss. That Shar worship dialogue option and the one about the Gith box seems to constantly come back also, must be a bug.
Even though I've mostly pissed off Lae'Zel, Shadowheart, and Asterion, they all wanted to bone me in camp last night. I think that Larian made the "romance" section trivially easy to complete on any run in EA because they wanted us to get "flavor" for the romance.
Originally Posted by Telephasic
Even though I've mostly pissed off Lae'Zel, Shadowheart, and Asterion, they all wanted to bone me in camp last night. I think that Larian made the "romance" section trivially easy to complete on any run in EA because they wanted us to get "flavor" for the romance.

All of them want kill me. I probably have done something wrong.
Yeah, I have no game. So far only Astarion propositioned me. I gave him the old “maybe next time, bro,” and backed away.

Not that I want to romance any of these characters. I like them, but I don’t like like them.
These "companions"...acting...Like watching really bad TV.
I blame EVERYTHING with the unnecessary need to have cinematic movie like dialogues. The time and resources necessary for just this really taxed Larian.
If it weren't for those we could of had a great BG2 like playable big NPCs cast, more interesting dialogues, tons and tons of more content, bigger party etc....Because of this decision, you cant even MOD in new playable NPCs to tie in with the story; like the multitude of amazing NPC mods for BG2.
Originally Posted by robertthebard
Originally Posted by Nyelin
Originally Posted by robertthebard
Originally Posted by Nyelin


I tend to disagree, and I do think there is a problem with the writing. I for one didn't follow the marketing, and, believe it or not, I didn't know Astarion was a Vampire. Or whatever was up with Wyll or Shadowheart. That aside, let's focus for a moment on Astarion. So you find him, and maybe after some sort of misunderstanding you agree that it is better to work together. We both have a bloody tadpole crawling around in our head, and we both agree that we need to remove it, and that our best chance is to work together. Fair enough up to that point.
So what does he do? He sneaks up on you one night and tries to drain your blood. No matter what he says afterwards, he has proven that he is entirely untrustworthy. Given the situation I'm in, I'd kick him from the group. I have enough problems as it is, I don't need a Vampire in my group that I cannot trust (okey, that seems to be redundant).
As for the others, Wyll and Gale are completely overdone. Their backstories do not link up with what they actually can deliver. Shadowheart and Lae'zel are better in that regard, but swing between arrogance and rudeness. I don't expect them to be particularly nice to me, but given the situatuion, and the fact that we apparently agree that we are better off as a group, I expect something more civil.
So I do have a problem with the writing. So far it seems to me that Larian was trying to outdo what they had delivered in DOS and DOS 2, but they overshot the target.


You can actually kick him from the group.


Yep, i know. I kicked him in one playthrough because I had a shit day. The point is really that I keep him in the group for metagaming reasons: I want to see how this plays out.

Nothing wrong with that. I could come up with a ton of RP reasons to keep him, even if I don't trust him. Resource management, for one, if he's a better lockpicker than I am. I also don't have any reason to really trust him on some of the characters I may play. Just one example would be "we must find a way to control it" instead of going straight to "get this thing out of my head". For those characters, there is an option to reject him outright, on the spot, I believe? That said, some of my characters will, undoubtedly, be right there with him on learning to control it, and use it for my own ends.

However, not liking a character doesn't have to equate to bad writing. In fact, not liking a character can come down to good writing. I don't know enough about any of the companions to say for sure, at this point in the game. My prime example for this will always be Alistair in Dragon Age. I despise him as a person. I really do. However, I love the fact that David Gaider could write him in such a way that he garners that vitriol from me. It is, however, entirely possible to play about 3/4 of the game before you get to where he showed his true colors to me, on the way in to Redcliffe. The point being, that there may well be redeeming qualities in any or all of these companions, and we'll never know if we just let first impressions rule whether we keep them or not. I really think there should be a dialog about Astarion with the rest of the party to the effect of "we can't trust him, because vampire, but we need him if we're going to get rid of these tadpoles", or, something completely opposite of that if we're going to remove him. It's not a "hey, you have to like x" thing either. Nothing could be further from the truth. It's more of a "we really don't know much about any of them, and we're not in a position where we're going to learn much in what we have" thing, and as with my position on the setting's feel, we're deliberately placed in such a way as to not spoil a lot of what's to come. It may well come to pass that some of them are irredeemable, and I sincerely hope that this is the case. "Bringing everyone to the light" is way too tropey to keep happening all the time, and it would be a refreshing change of pace, sort of like Morrigan.


Speaking of DAO, I found Alistair somewhere between mildy amusing and mildly annoying. But I couldn't stand Zevran. I think I had him in two playthroughs, but in all my others I immediately killed him off. And I never thought he was badly written.

It's not that I dislike the companions. Wyll is for me an example of a likeable character gone sour. I'n going to borrow something from Mass Effect 2, which is another poster child of good companion writing to illustrate what I mean. One of the more glaring examples of an overdone character in ME 2 is Jack. She's presented as a biotic prodigy, a true badass. When you rescue here, in one of the cut scenes she kills a Mech single handidly, which is pretty impressive. When you later talk to her, she tells you of her exploits, which are pretty unbelievable. None of this really translates into her capabilities in your group, so for me Jack is about as mismatched as Wyll from the point of her backstory. Yet Jack I could swallow when I have trouble with Wyll. The major reason is that with Jack, the writers decided to present this matter-of-factly and rather understated. Jack didn't see her exploits as accomplishments, but rather as some shit she has done. The writers of Wyll went with an outgoing, extrovert personality. So Wyll is constantly in your face about how great he is, when he really isn't. That's really the thing that makes Jack work for me, but not Wyll, even though in both cases I consider their backstories to be similarly overdone.
Gale's backstory on the oher hand is beyond the pale. I lke Gale, even though he wants my best magic items, and I actually find the backstory as such really entertaining. It just doesn't work for me in the context of the game and the group.

I do agree that you may always find redeeming qualities in your companions later on. But If I look at Astarion, it's not that I distrust him because he's a Vampire, except for the general distrust you have for the members of that specific undead family. If another companion had tried to backstab, or let's say rape, you when you are not looking, would you be that forgiving? Because that is what his action amounts to. That's why I would always distrust him, not because he's a Vampire.

There are a couple of other points, but those are the things why I find the writing underwhelming so far.
The first lines of dialogue from that Fighter woman immediately made me wonder why there is no "Attack her" option in that first dialogue. Very poorly chosen first lines. I don't like her one bit.
Originally Posted by Alrik
The first lines of dialogue from that Fighter woman immediately made me wonder why there is no "Attack her" option in that first dialogue. Very poorly chosen first lines. I don't like her one bit.

If you mean Lae'Zel, the githyanki, then yes. You are not meant to like her, nor are you really meant to like any of the Companions. They are a collection of weirdos (too weird for my tastes, but hey) who would normally fight each other or ignore each at best. That is deliberate. Larian have stated that the only reason the party is working together is because you have a similar problem to solve and it is easier to solve that problem by working together.

You are unlikely allies at best.
Do you have to bother with companions if your are in a 4 player MP game?
Originally Posted by Nyelin
[quote=robertthebard]

Speaking of DAO, I found Alistair somewhere between mildy amusing and mildly annoying. But I couldn't stand Zevran. I think I had him in two playthroughs, but in all my others I immediately killed him off. And I never thought he was badly written.

It's not that I dislike the companions. Wyll is for me an example of a likeable character gone sour. I'n going to borrow something from Mass Effect 2, which is another poster child of good companion writing to illustrate what I mean. One of the more glaring examples of an overdone character in ME 2 is Jack. She's presented as a biotic prodigy, a true badass. When you rescue here, in one of the cut scenes she kills a Mech single handidly, which is pretty impressive. When you later talk to her, she tells you of her exploits, which are pretty unbelievable. None of this really translates into her capabilities in your group, so for me Jack is about as mismatched as Wyll from the point of her backstory. Yet Jack I could swallow when I have trouble with Wyll. The major reason is that with Jack, the writers decided to present this matter-of-factly and rather understated. Jack didn't see her exploits as accomplishments, but rather as some shit she has done. The writers of Wyll went with an outgoing, extrovert personality. So Wyll is constantly in your face about how great he is, when he really isn't. That's really the thing that makes Jack work for me, but not Wyll, even though in both cases I consider their backstories to be similarly overdone.
Gale's backstory on the oher hand is beyond the pale. I lke Gale, even though he wants my best magic items, and I actually find the backstory as such really entertaining. It just doesn't work for me in the context of the game and the group.

I do agree that you may always find redeeming qualities in your companions later on. But If I look at Astarion, it's not that I distrust him because he's a Vampire, except for the general distrust you have for the members of that specific undead family. If another companion had tried to backstab, or let's say rape, you when you are not looking, would you be that forgiving? Because that is what his action amounts to. That's why I would always distrust him, not because he's a Vampire.

There are a couple of other points, but those are the things why I find the writing underwhelming so far.

I don't disagree, nor do I blame ya'. My thing with Wyll is that I know people that are exactly like him. Crap, I'm even related to at least one. As I sit here thinking about it, I've come to realize that I know people that are similar to, if not exactly like all of the companions, barring the sleep creep stuff from Astarion, anyway. But in their overall attitudes and mannerisms, I know these people in real life. Ok we have to remove all the magical/mystical whozits too, but the basic archetypes aren't as unrealistic as some seem to believe. It's also the case that I'd rather have people like them around me, where at least I know where I stand, mostly, than people like my neighbor, for example, who's all nice and polite when we're talking, but gets all out of control about me to others, thinking I'll never hear about it.

Ah, Jack, I just recently played her recruitment mission again. Yeah, the way she's presented doesn't really add up to the way she actually plays, mostly. Even that hard baked exterior doesn't match what's inside, once you progress a bit. However, I wouldn't want to go out of my way to make her mad. Shepard might be able to take her out, but that's because Shepard is everything she was presented to be, and more, depending on the player, anyway...
Originally Posted by grip
Do you have to bother with companions if your are in a 4 player MP game?

Nope. They are optional. They are, in fact, optional in a SP campaign too.
Originally Posted by Bossk_Hogg
Originally Posted by FrostyFardragon
People generally come to forums to complain about something. The people who are happy with the companions are much less likely to post than people who have an axe to grind.


This. Add in the neckbeard factor because a female character dares to be anything but a doe eyed waifu and, well...

Maybe they can add in some mute companions for those who cant handle anything beyond Tolkeinesque low fantasy dirt farmers. The dwarf from the hag's hut can be your bog standard dwarven fighter. Maybe he can say "it if aint dwarven, its crap" in a scottish accent! Oho! That was funny 40 years ago and certainly still holds up! Add in an elven ranger, a hobbit thief, and an old wizard (really just Gale with a beard) and a passive cute female life cleric. Give Tav an amulet that has the narrator intone "You're a special boy! Not only are you special, but you're the MOST special, and no one else is special!". They can click it whenever they need the validation. Then the grandpa crowd can shut up and get to Denny's for their senior specials.


[Linked Image]

This. I feel the original BG series might have overdone it a bit with the MC, so it's actually quite easy to see where these critiques are coming from.

Also to be fair Gale (and probably Wyll too - though I feel Wyll just really needs to believe in stories he tells himself to justify the deal he's made) is sort of Mary Sue.

Honest to god I don't get it. Even with the EA, contained content we got (and specially because of that), you can perceive growth in Shadowheart, for example (since everyone complains mostly about her cause she ain't no waifu).

If you help the tieflings, she's surprised she found herself caring for them, despite the complaints, if you side with the goblins she's clearly conflicted about the murders, drunkenly talking to you about it. She reads like a conflict of morals from someone who was raised inside a cult and never had to really confront things outside of that, and that shows both growth and potential for more growth as the game goes on.
And yes the romances are def rushed here, if you ignore they might have limited time to bang with a tadpole inside their heads, it's one thing I hope to be fixed.

Being able to see that small growth in EA is reassuring to me in that yes, the writing is nuanced, and I expect it to continue to be so, even if they are not the most companionable companions. Perhaps labelling her as a tsundere will prove more effective in convincing the masses. Point is, females having any depth that's not "cleric swoon *giggles*" is where majority of the complaints I saw seem to be coming from. And this from someone who absolutely detests Wyll and that frog Lae'zel and will not say no to a good himbo given the chance. I haven't been able to stand Wyll in my plays because of his casual arrogance, Lae'zal casual racism and arrogance (Lae compliments your character on their nerve after killing the goblin leaders though, which, hey, another sign of growth). Wyll.. I'd rather eat dwarf belly than have him in my party, honestly, but I see where he has potential and why people might like him as a character.


A dimensional companion you hate is infinitely preferable over blanks of characters that add nothing and just react with claps and praise. But, as with most other posts, this will end up being a battle of opinions.




Originally Posted by Telephasic
Originally Posted by Rouoko
If I meet them in Baldur's Gate 1 will kill them faster than kobold in Nashkel mine.



Honestly they remind me a lot in some ways of the annoying pushy NPCS added by Beamdog in BGEE.


hmm only one of those i actually liked and kept was korn
Originally Posted by Ulla G
Honest to god I don't get it. Even with the EA, contained content we got (and specially because of that), you can perceive growth in Shadowheart, for example (since everyone complains mostly about her cause she ain't no waifu).


Being able to see that small growth in EA is reassuring to me in that yes, the writing is nuanced, and I expect it to continue to be so, even if they are not the most companionable companions. Perhaps labelling her as a tsundere will prove more effective in convincing the masses. Point is, females having any depth that's not "cleric swoon *giggles*" is where majority of the complaints I saw seem to be coming from. And this from someone who absolutely detests Wyll and that frog Lae'zel and will not say no to a good himbo given the chance. I haven't been able to stand Wyll in my plays because of his casual arrogance, Lae'zal casual racism and arrogance (Lae compliments your character on their nerve after killing the goblin leaders though, which, hey, another sign of growth). Wyll.. I'd rather eat dwarf belly than have him in my party, honestly, but I see where he has potential and why people might like him as a character.


A dimensional companion you hate is infinitely preferable over blanks of characters that add nothing and just react with claps and praise. But, as with most other posts, this will end up being a battle of opinions.



Barring the fact that its EA and is incomplete, i'd honestly just give people time to warm up to the characters. In BG2 Viconia is one of the top waifus and she straight up insults your character after their first night for not "performing" up to her standards. I'd imagine that put off a lot of people initially before she became "one of the best romances in video game history". I don't want this warm up to take 20 years of course, but I am sure there will be more character development in these guys to make people love them.

I am kind of on the fence about Wyll, too nice is a little questionable for me, and yes as you said he is arrogant. But Lae'Zel I absolutely love and love the chance to trade insults with her.
Originally Posted by Alrik
The first lines of dialogue from that Fighter woman immediately made me wonder why there is no "Attack her" option in that first dialogue. Very poorly chosen first lines. I don't like her one bit.


- Halt! Be thy friend or foe?
"When is the last time someone said 'foe', tinhead?"
Originally Posted by Rouoko
Originally Posted by Telephasic
Even though I've mostly pissed off Lae'Zel, Shadowheart, and Asterion, they all wanted to bone me in camp last night. I think that Larian made the "romance" section trivially easy to complete on any run in EA because they wanted us to get "flavor" for the romance.

All of them want kill me. I probably have done something wrong.


Unfortunately, this is the problem of all romances as far as I can see.
[Linked Image] [Linked Image] [Linked Image] [Linked Image]
[Linked Image]
[Linked Image] [Linked Image] [Linked Image] [Linked Image]
All right mate, your argumentations are too superior for me to confute, you won.
Let's call it a day and depart in peace.
Originally Posted by Ulla G
Honest to god I don't get it. Even with the EA, contained content we got (and specially because of that), you can perceive growth in Shadowheart, for example (since everyone complains mostly about her cause she ain't no waifu).

If you help the tieflings, she's surprised she found herself caring for them, despite the complaints, if you side with the goblins she's clearly conflicted about the murders, drunkenly talking to you about it. She reads like a conflict of morals from someone who was raised inside a cult and never had to really confront things outside of that, and that shows both growth and potential for more growth as the game goes on.
And yes the romances are def rushed here, if you ignore they might have limited time to bang with a tadpole inside their heads, it's one thing I hope to be fixed.

Being able to see that small growth in EA is reassuring to me in that yes, the writing is nuanced, and I expect it to continue to be so, even if they are not the most companionable companions. Perhaps labelling her as a tsundere will prove more effective in convincing the masses. Point is, females having any depth that's not "cleric swoon *giggles*" is where majority of the complaints I saw seem to be coming from. And this from someone who absolutely detests Wyll and that frog Lae'zel and will not say no to a good himbo given the chance. I haven't been able to stand Wyll in my plays because of his casual arrogance, Lae'zal casual racism and arrogance (Lae compliments your character on their nerve after killing the goblin leaders though, which, hey, another sign of growth). Wyll.. I'd rather eat dwarf belly than have him in my party, honestly, but I see where he has potential and why people might like him as a character.


A dimensional companion you hate is infinitely preferable over blanks of characters that add nothing and just react with claps and praise. But, as with most other posts, this will end up being a battle of opinions.






Cheers!
Originally Posted by Sharet
All right mate, your argumentations are too superior for me to confute, you won.
Let's call it a day and depart in peace.

(I know who you are responding to, but you might want to mention or quote a fragment in your post so that everyone else knows. Otherwise poor old OneManArmy will think you're picking on him).
They are all pretty linear attitude wise and they squabble like children, Gale tries to eat all the magic items you find and Astarion is very whiny.. Wyll while pretty normal by the other standards is really quite boring. I honestly don't see what others see good about them.
They are pretty annoying to deal with for hours on end, it tends to make me tune out and ignore them pretty much.
Originally Posted by DanteYoda
They are all pretty linear attitude wise and they squabble like children, Gale tries to eat all the magic items you find and Astarion is very whiny.. Wyll while pretty normal by the other standards is really quite boring. I honestly don't see what others see good about them.
They are pretty annoying to deal with for hours on end, it tends to make me tune out and ignore them pretty much.

I don't know about anyone else, but what I do like is that they aren't automatically my best friend. They remind me of Morrigan, in a way. Handy to have around, and hard to put up with, if you're not inclined to put up with her. It gets boring, after a while, to have all the party members be extensions of the PC. Some of them could be snarkier, as far as I'm concerned, and it's not like all their interactions with each other are particularly negative, some definitely are, Lae'Zal, and Shadowheart, for example, but Shadowheart and Astarion can almost be civil to each other in party banter. Are they the best companions I've ever had in an RPG? No, I've played Mass Effect and Dragon Age, along with the BG series. They are, however, far from the worst companions I've ever had, and some of those include other players...
Originally Posted by robertthebard
They are, however, far from the worst companions I've ever had, and some of those include other players...

Ah well, now there's a whole thread by itself. Possibly a whole forum!
Originally Posted by Sadurian
Originally Posted by robertthebard
They are, however, far from the worst companions I've ever had, and some of those include other players...

Ah well, now there's a whole thread by itself. Possibly a whole forum!

Indeed, and one wouldn't have to peruse many MMO or other MP type games to find thread after thread, gah!!!!
Originally Posted by Sadurian
Originally Posted by Sharet
All right mate, your argumentations are too superior for me to confute, you won.
Let's call it a day and depart in peace.

(I know who you are responding to, but you might want to mention or quote a fragment in your post so that everyone else knows. Otherwise poor old OneManArmy will think you're picking on him).


On the top of each post there is the name of who you are replying to, I failed to notice at first but now I take it for granted ^^.
Just love for OneManArmy laugh
As of this writing I have only had five different play throughs on the following race/classes:
Woodelf Ranger
Tiefling Warlock
Dwarf Cleric
Drow Rogue
Githyanki Fighter

During these five play throughs I always get the same option with Astarion when he asks for assistance. The first is essentially saying I can kill the creature he is talking about, while the second says something along the lines of "do it yourself."

Each option ends up with him coming at you with a knife. There are additional options that are afforded to the player based on class, stats etc, but my main complaint is that at least on my play throughs, it starts immediately with a knife and then changes.
Originally Posted by DrNikolai

During these five play throughs I always get the same option with Astarion when he asks for assistance. . . .
Each option ends up with him coming at you with a knife.

Yes Astarion always starts by drawing a knife on you (although if you make the perception check then you catch him before he can do anything), but I fail to see the problem with this?

In fact, it makes perfect sense, he’s lost, had a tadpole inserted into his brain, is confused by being able to walk in the light, and as a vampire isn’t used to being friendly with people.
He just wants information and as soon as he gets it, he apologizes.
Originally Posted by DrNikolai
As of this writing I have only had five different play throughs on the following race/classes:
Woodelf Ranger
Tiefling Warlock
Dwarf Cleric
Drow Rogue
Githyanki Fighter

During these five play throughs I always get the same option with Astarion when he asks for assistance. The first is essentially saying I can kill the creature he is talking about, while the second says something along the lines of "do it yourself."

Each option ends up with him coming at you with a knife. There are additional options that are afforded to the player based on class, stats etc, but my main complaint is that at least on my play throughs, it starts immediately with a knife and then changes.

Why is that a problem? You are a complete stranger that, for all he knows, is part of how he ended up in the position he's in. Shadowheart is no less hostile immediately upon coming up on her, she just doesn't draw a knife, and she mellows, a bit, if you tried to save her on the ship. I don't know what happens if you don't try, because I always try, just to spite Lae'Zel. In his case, however, it's far more disturbing to him, because he's standing there in broad daylight, and he's not on fire.
I feel that the PC should have additional dialogue options or insight. To me it does not make sense for the PC to say "oh sure" or to say "do it yourself" and immediately turn your back on someone you have only just met. The PC does not know at the time that Astarion is a vampire. When experiencing other conversations, the PC can do a variety of things such as insight, reading body language, wisdom, intelligence, survival, etc, that for some reason do not come into play with Astarion, but can be used everywhere else.

The way the Astarion encounter is setup to me makes the PC seem inexperienced in the world/life, and then all of a sudden after the encounter they can use their stats to make numerous checks in dialogue elsewhere. Even as far as checking other party members for deception.

Take Shadowheart for example, if you are a certain race she absolutely hates you, but you have options in dialogue to potentially make her friend or foe.

I am sure there will be more things added as this is early access, but my only complaint companion wise (if I had one) is the lack of conversation options upon initially encountering Astarion. Something like "sure ill help," "no do it yourself," "deception check," "Insight check" etc would make it better.
Astarion's first instinct is to kill you (well, he's a confused vampire who has just been abducted and subject to mind-flayer hospitality, cut him some slack). Not the best way to introduce a companion you are supposed to like to admire, but that's not really the reactions that Larian expect you to have at this point. I should say that, in D:OS 2, I often killed Sebille thanks to her similar less-than-auspicious introduction.

I agree that the possibility should exist for a better dialogue path at that point though. My take is that the choice allow you to be either be naive to the point of stupid, mockingly hostile, or passive aggressive. A PnP character would deserve to be attacked with those responses.
What is the point of a class character builder if the game storyline is completely built around companions? Whatever character you create, he/she/it will always be second class to these premade companions stories.
That is a HUGE departure from BG1 and 2.
For example, I want to play that Illithid lord creature, I want to experience HIS epic story and make it my own by deciding his background...then have these companions (in the beginning control them as slaves, and progressively get to know them...) support me on my quest to discover my true self...

Originally Posted by mr_planescapist
For example, I want to play that Illithid lord creature, I want to experience HIS epic story and make it my own by deciding his background...then have these companions (in the beginning control them as slaves, and progressively get to know them...) support me on my quest to discover my true self..

Did you used to play in Swindon in the late 1980s, because I'm sure I've encountered you as a player.... wink
I stumbled upon something rather strange/funny?

You know how quest log is always written in plural? I took that to mean "we" as in "our party", however if you choose to have that one night stand with Astarion, the PC is the only one to see his scars. Still the log reads "after spending the night with Astarion we..."?! WTF?

Maybe our PC has a backstory afterall - maybe he/she is shisophrenic or an intellect devourer? (No but really I got uncomfortable "Us" vibes from that, though it's probably just an oversight)
Originally Posted by mr_planescapist
What is the point of a class character builder if the game storyline is completely built around companions? Whatever character you create, he/she/it will always be second class to these premade companions stories.
That is a HUGE departure from BG1 and 2.
For example, I want to play that Illithid lord creature, I want to experience HIS epic story and make it my own by deciding his background...then have these companions (in the beginning control them as slaves, and progressively get to know them...) support me on my quest to discover my true self...



I want to play a chef on an interplanar mission to gather ingredients to win Iron Chef Sigil! Why do I have to deal with tadpoles?

What? That's not the adventure? I'm shocked, SHOCKED that a module doesnt cater to every possible character!

I believe they stated they'll have custom companions later for all your mute packmule needs.

Oh, good. Someone else who regularly killed Sebille. She was a crazy arsed psychopath who wanted to kill you just for looking at her. I can kind of understand Astarian's reaction though since he saw you on the ship and thought you were an Illithid thrall. As soon as he realises you're not, he backs off.
My Tyr cleric got one or two pieces of God specific dialogue, so some exists if not much. I would like to see more.
Originally Posted by mr_planescapist
What is the point of a class character builder if the game storyline is completely built around companions? Whatever character you create, he/she/it will always be second class to these premade companions stories.


But the BG3 story isn't built around your companions at all . . . its a new story where our main character is the driving force and making all the important decisions. All the companions are totally optional pieces.

Now the companions having more interesting backstories than our main character is another topic/issue. I don't mind it, in fact I prefer a blank slate so I can choose to be whoever I want. (I'd rather not be forced to be the spawn of a god for example!). I would however like it if we got the option to make a few more pre-selections about our history during character creation. And it would be nice if our 'origin' was referenced in the game.

Larian appears to be trying to allow us to craft the story we want . . .I mean we can start as an evil power hungry Drow and play the game that way, or be a goody two shoes, or whatever we want.
BG1 and 2 Characters were nothing super special. I am found of them but let’s look at them for what they were. In BG1 there was no character development for any of them. Some amusing dialog here and there but aside from Minsc and Boo, none of them were that amusing. I absolutely hated Khalid and would suicide him at the first opportunity.

Most of the characters had a reason to be friendly with you. EG Imoen grew up with you, jaheria owed gorian, saved Dinaher (sp?) for Minsc etc. also Minsc will attack you if you take too long.

BG2 tried harder with more dialogs but it’s still pretty shallow. Each companion has their quest where you get to know them better. Some changes to alignment etc, but nothing major. They are written well enough to be entertaining but aside from yoshimo no true surprises. All of them are pretty one dimensional with no shades of grey.

The only character with any form of a redemption arch is saravok. This is not to say it was bad but the companions are just fluff. I guess if the story is the Bhaal spawn saga that makes sense.


This is not the story Larian is telling. So far from what I have gathered the mystery is what do you have in common, why were you all picked, why isn’t the tadpole doing its thing.

Then the sub mystery and did plot. Shadowheart- are you connected to the village, will her memory come back, is she a true follower of what, etc.

Asteroin- obviously a fight is being telegraphed with his master, also will he want to remove the tadpole. He makes several comments (hags house for one) where he is happy with his new abilities.

Gale-is he telling the truth about mystera, or did he just attempt and pay the price. What is going to cost me to keep the wizard. His now obvious side quest. Also what happens if I leave him dead.

I am on my first play and doing a fighter so I am classic fighter thief cleric mage.

These are at least interesting characters so far with hooks that leave me wanting to know more. They are even very friendly at times depending on my decisions and opinionated if they don’t approve. The subtle code talking by the monster hunter had me chuckling. This is exactly what I want in a fleshed out NPC.

The characters also act how you would expect. For instance, A cleric of shar will not be a friendly open person. The moral struggle she is going through will create hostility and confused feelings. There is obviously some bugs not tracking exact progression, but overall she is being foreshadowed and small clues are being dropped. This is better writing than most games. We will see where it goes in the final version but it has great potential.

No one is more hostile then expected.


Also small point to the person, I’m on my phone so going back to quote just isn’t happening, that said hostile inconsistent reactions are not scientifically related to trauma, you need to read more studies especially surrounding ptsd. I had so many briefs in identifying PTSD symptoms when I was in the army it was ridiculous. Inconsistent and withdrawn behavior to hostile behavior is a hallmark. One minute the person can be normal and almost happy, and then all of a sudden withdrawn and hostile depending on the situation. Hell half of what were are talking about is the assessment they ask me every time I go to the VA.
© Larian Studios forums