Ok. I don't know why... Maybe it's all the talk about Shadowheart, but suddenly this is really bothering me.

Why are there SO many cringe elements in this game, like bad puns almost?

Her name is Shadowheart because she's a servant of Shar, goddess of shadows

His name is Gale, because he has a tempest of magic raging within him.

His name is Wyll, because he's survived by submitting his will to a demon.

Kagha is called a snake by like everyone and she conveniently has a snake as a companion.

Druids tell people numerous times to behave or you'll feel their claws, because they can wild shape into animals.

Bad puns about the Hells.

I don't know. I think I just took a step back and thought, what corny D&D names. Shadowheart sounds like a Native American name, liked Dances with Wolves. Gale sounds like Gail, a woman's name but is literally a wind or storm. Couldn't they have come up with better names and have a bit less emphasis on the "That snake has replaced our leader" bit?

I still think Larian is less making a good game but trying to create a twitch / youtube meme machine / creation tool.

On-the-nose names such as "Shadowheart" for a servant of evil do not bother me in the slightest, because the practice is an old one as far as the fantasy genre goes.

Here's another one:

I care about our lives, our futures," says Rolan endlessly to his two tiefling companions.

Evil path, grove fight, during Zevlor's speech. "We won't let them take our lives, our children, our futures."

Like he was quoting some random guy in the camp in his inspiration speech? Ugh! Couldn't they come up with something better? That line from Rolan drives me nuts.

But yes. These are minor things. It's a great game.

To be frank, I don't want a "good game"...I want a good (or better) Forgotten Realms game.

The name Shadowheart feels heavy handed to me (although I'm used to it now), and the snake drum is beaten a bit too hard with Kagha, but I don't mind the rest so much.

The druids talking about showing their claws makes sense, I think. It's an active threat, basically saying, push me and I'll turn into a bear and rip you up. I don't think of that as a pun so much as a very real threat.

Mine is Aradin's "Form a line" like if he was talking to an army of 2 soldiers... It is ridiculous.

"Form a Line!" Then immediately in the same cutscene, a moment later, rush forward, breaking said formation.

Though, personally, I blame the writers for this, and the frequent repetition of exhausted cliches, rather than the characters perpetrating them.

What we really need is a writing overhaul.

To be fair, it was probably going to be a melee lineup front but Larian failed to show it.

From the listed Shadowheart is the only one who take my eye ...
But since i see her as typical teenager, who wants nothing more than to be center of attention, just so she can openly complain about being center of attention ... its seemed fitting.

But there is lot of errors about her ...
I mean she is supossed to be on "secret mission" for her "secret goddess" bcs as she say "secrecy is everything for Sharite" ... yet she keep bitching on Selune, she keeps talking about how secret and important her mission is, she chooses the weirdest name on Faerun with direct link to her goddess, and she WEARS HER FUCKING SYMBOL ON FOREHEAD! -_-

I mean i dont know how it works in Belgia ...
But in Czech if we "try to keep secret" we usualy avoid the topic as much as we can. :-/
Instead mentioning it in every occasion, just to theatricaly say "i cant tell you anything, its a secret".

I allways thought that he and the other meele guy was "forming a line" in front of their Bow lady. O_o

https://forgottenrealms.fandom.com/wiki/Scyllua_Darkhope

https://forgottenrealms.fandom.com/wiki/Gareth_Dragonsbane

https://forgottenrealms.fandom.com/wiki/Halaster_Blackcloak

https://forgottenrealms.fandom.com/wiki/Naergoth_Bladelord

https://forgottenrealms.fandom.com/wiki/Chancil_Crystalheart

As I said...an old practice.

That makes sense.
"Shadowheart" is hopefully probably a last name or someone else's last name, and players won't learn the first name until later.

I got the impression that Shadowheart is her designate nickname for the mission because her memory wipe included any relevent information like her real name.

Dunno, man. I remember playing patch 2 and by far the cringiest things were the companions' banters, way more eyebrow raising than any given name. That at the time i was also playing DA:O didn't make 'em any favors.

Having said that though, the name Shadowheart is admittedly some edgelord shit.

A line with 2 characters is not a line...

"Hold your position" "tight formation" "[archername], stay behind us". Anything but not "form a line" lol

I'm thinking that as well.

Surely if you are on a secret mission for the Church of Shar, you wouldn't present yourself to every stranger you meet by your ominous codename. That's my problem with her. She's supposed to divert attention away from herself and her secret mission but she's doing the exact opposite. The whole "my name is Shadowheart and I have dark secrets I can't tell you" act is really rubbing me the wrong way.

Think of the dramatic reveal they could have created later down the line after she had masterfully been fooling everyone. It would have been but the writers just blew it completely. Although at this point I'm pretty sure the big reveal is that she's actually but that doesn't really salvage the poor presentation in the beginning. And it's probably lame like this because she's an origin character. The origin system takes the edge off these characters without giving anything in return for those who want to create their own character in a D&D game.

Yeah.

Operation: SHADOWHEART

Aradin can be forgiven for this. He has PTSD after losing his group of adventurers. They could have “form[ed] a line”… but alas the goblins they stumbled upon reduced their numbers.

You are all so right.

Yeah, this. Wyll is a real name and Gale totally feels like it could be a real name (but maybe I'm biased coming from a culture where names like Wolf, Bear, Eagle, Path and Stone -- or in my own case Staff -- are common), they are just fine. Shadowheart is the only one who feels too much to me. The worst part is that the writers don't seem to realise just how too much it is judging from the dialogue options we get about it. I want the option to straight out burst into laughter when she introduces herself and mock her.

Admittedly, exceptions aside, anyone TRYING to engage in clandestine activity among most Neutral and all Good-aligned folk is foolish to outright state their name as "Shadowheart" to everyone within earshot, but as an otherwise standard fantasy bad-guy name? Nah...this is a classic trope.

FYI, Gale is unisex name - just like Lindsay, Ashley, Billy/Billie, Jesse/Jessie, Riley, Bobby/Bobbi etc.

Depending on location and time period, the popularity of the name's used for the different genders tend to flip flop.

Technically, you only need two people (points) to form a line. But in context, I agree with you.

I agree. I mean, I don't know if he has PTSD, but I agree that he's used to giving orders to more people and it's apparent that they've taken casualties.

That said...

The people on the bridge is there regardless of whether the three leave the grove or stay. They're either supposed to be unrelated people or that's where the original ambush took place.

Hmm, okay. I can accept that. In my games, they almost always leave the grove, so I rarely get a chance to see the scene otherwise.

While i agree ...

We should also concider that they were under attack, so Aradin probably shouted first order he gave every time, without thinking about proper wording behind it ... so, personaly im fine with that honestly.

//Edit:
Also ...
- Hold positions is completely different order, that would mean nobody should move instead of meele people forward and ranged people stay on place.
- Tight formation is also something different, since he obviously wanted to "form a line" that would keep archer safe ... therefore, logicaly, archer should keep her distance from them and therefore should not be in tight formation ... and its easier to yell "form a line" than "you come forward with me, you stay behind us".
- [archername], stay behind us ... that would work, but you gave no order for your meele companion you need to move forward ... also its aproximately twice as long as "form a line" (count the syllables, not the letters)

So ... basicaly he gave the best order he could ...
May seem little ridiculous since he dont have enough man to preform it effectively, that much is true ... but hey give him a break, he tryed his best.

I though "Gale" was a use-name as wizards like to conceal their true-names to be safe.

Possibly a nickname from someone else who thought the young wizard was a bit of a windbag. Possiblr self-referenced in the "there's a gust of weave about you..." line

That's some top-shelf snark right there. Well done!

That's more or less what my take's been. They got routed at the goblin camp, and then followed as they fled. The bodies by the bridge are the comrades who they lost in a skirmish as part of their retreat to the grove. When we encounter Aradin there, it's his party's first opportunity to visit their dead.

Gale uses the words tempest, breeze, storm, etc all the time. It is a bit heavy handed. But I honestly think it is all basically a shoutout to Dorothy Gale from the Wizard of Oz.

If he gets ruby slippers at some point, I won’t be surprised.

Depending on your choices, Aradin and his crew will actually be at that bridge examining the dead. You can have a chat with him about it. So yeah, definitely where his crew had their final fight.

I guess what's weird about that scene to me is that they usually leave the grove immediately in my games. Which means I spend a lot of time in the grove, and then I do the Harper area, and then I go into the caves to deal with the goblins and statues, and then I learn about the true souls, and then I eventually get around to crossing the bridge...

...at which point I see Aradin and his crew again. This time Aradin is kneeling by these dead bodies, and I'm thinking they must be fresh bodies, not rotting corpses, you know? Because it's been so long. I figured Aradin would've had a chance to pay his respect, bury them if need be, and be on his way if these deaths weren't recent.

So I just kind of assumed that the fight had just played out right before I got there.

I can see that I'm wrong now that you've pointed it out, but to me that means the timing feels off. I'm not sure it's a big enough problem for me to complain about, though.

More like:
Operation: Shadowsteal
Team Leader: Shadowhead
Team Medic: Shadowheart
Team Sniper: Shadoweye
Team Muscle: Shadowhand
Team Hacker: Shadowbrain

Meh seriously after the PTSD, here is another theory to explain something that does not make any sense.

Once again like in many threads, when the story of BG3 lack of coherence people are crafting theory in their head to explain what is not possible to explain.

When people have to imagine things in their head for such details... There's really something going wrong.

What details?
I was just comenting your own suggestions for "better comands" from wich actualy none make any sence. :P

You mean "all those deep details" that he obviously didnt think much about exact grammar logic in his comand, when he had drolling bloodthirsty goblins litteraly few metters behind his ass? O_o
Yeah ... sooooo many detail i had to create myself.

And also yes, those litteraly 3 words (Form a Line) was indeed "the story of BG3 lacking of coherence" ... -_-

It makes perfect sense that he's used to giving orders to more people. This isn't bending over backwards mental gymnastics.

If anything, I feel like people are bending over backwards trying to find reasons to hate.

Yeah perfect sense that he's at the door asking to open because they have been slauthered then suddenly forgot they have been slauthered.

He's shouting "form a line" like a captain would in an army. It's not a reason to hate, it's something I found ridiculous since day 1 and that I still find wierd in every playthrough.

No problem if you don't but don't try to get into Aradin's head. He hasn't write BG3's dialogs. But maybe Larian's writer when it was time to write this cinematic were thinking something like you......... (Probably not).

+1

+1. Almost feel sorry for them. Must suck to be a hater who can't enjoy something.

Because any criticism is "hating" and obviously anyone who finds flaws and verbalizes them is on a mission of hatred. Obviously.

Meanwhile, certain people here can look at something slowly fall out of the backside of a dog and still insist that if Larian made the dog then Larian made what came out of the dog and therefore it's a fantastic chocolate brownie. A bit mushy, sure, but it still tastes great.

Cute effort, but unless you find this sentence in at least single another topic ... not "any criticism" is "hating" ...
Just stupid one.

Sometimes it feels as if, but I don't fully agree here.

I think it's ok to point out things one finds noteworthy - and while I don't get a feeling of cringe about anything in this game (I had one in D:OS2, but it was very minor), I can understand that some people may feel different.

However, so far I enjoyed my time with BG3 a lot, it's a game which still in EA provides MUCH more fun and playtime than many titles by big publishers (looking at Electronic Arts and Activision).

On the other hand: criticizing is not hating, I understand that one can feel this way about naming of the characters - to my ears they all sound nice and I really feel like that the companions are who they are.

Looking forward to more adventures with my gang. <3

Oh okay, so you're the one who determines whether people's opinions are stupid or not.

But are you capable of seeing any criticism as not stupid?

I mean, we literally have a "secret" worshipper of a god of secrecy and shadow who has the super unconspicuous name "Shadowheart". It's a bit like having a Soviet spy that goes undercover as a totally normal tenth generation American who goes by the single name Stalinesque. Yeah, I'm sure McCarthy will totally let that one fly, won't he? For bonus points, Stalinesque should fancy having patches with hammers sewn onto his clothes and he should spit and curse every time he sees something capitalist. Will totally blend in, obviously.

That's basically Shadow doing her thing until she emotionally confides in Tav that actually she's, oh my gosh, a Shar worshipper on a super secret mission??! The cringe bit isn't so much Shadow herself, I suppose, but rather the whole setup. Everything about her screams "not a typical cleric" and none of her behavior suggests she's actually a goodly-aligned cleric either, and yet the scene is trying to make it out as if it's a big shock and totally surprising that she's "not what she seems" and also a worshipper of an evil god.

The "I'm a shar worshipper" scene would be so much stronger if we ever had a reason to think of Shadowheart as something other than a cleric with a super fake name who doesn't appear to be aligned with a good god, but being played seriously here it just doesn't work, to the point where the whole thing is more than a little bit cringe.

And yet pointing this out is bending over backwards to hate on the game?

Once again, cute effort ...

But if you read abowe, you can see this:
Do you know what that means? :P
"I" was not the judge here ... :P

I believe i am ... (dont we all?)
Its common sence ... once one person is complaining about something that majority of other people clearly conciders to be minor detail not worthy of any atention ... its stupid.

I mean we could be nitpicking every single sentence in game and provide multiple hours of analyse to decide if that particular sentence should, or should not be said as it is ...
But isnt there more pressing matters?

This i would use as perfect example of those "more pressing matters"

I really honestly and without a single doubt concider "whole Shadowhearts setup being wrong" as much bigger narative problem than the fact that Aradin yelled "form a line" while there was only two of them to form it.

Nope, where did you get that?

We live in a world of "Smith's", " Carpenter's", "Barber's", "Weaver's", "Forrester's", "Farmer's", "Lake's", "River's, "Ocean's" , Gunn's", and so on; not to forget one named folks such as Madonna, Sting, Bono, The Edge, ad infinitum. And let's not leave out almost every single rap musician , DJ and VJ out there, with nouns and adjectives as names. And this is in "modern" times.

Shadowheart is no more or less a stretch, and name variants such as Gale and Wyll (for Gail and Will) are about as normal as anything now. Many of them also are borne by both males and females.

I see nothing wrong with the names chosen.

I find it far more objectionable to enter an MMO game, and run across 15 Drizzt's, a dozen Elminster's, and a zillion folks named Godkiller, Kingslayer, UberDude, BestThief and the like.

But, I'm sure someone can come up with a mod allowing you to change Shadow's name to Jane Doe, Karen, or Susie Sunlight.

The scene is also weak because a supposedly "big reveal" is done through dialogue. "Yes, I worship Shar bla bla..." And how many opportunities did they have for a better scene that would show instead of telling?

The shrine of Selûne with her statue in it. Some moonlighty magic could awaken and probe Shadowheart which sends her into channeling Shar's dark magic which dramatically shatters Selûne's statue? Establish the Shar vs Selûne conflict as real at the same time. The goblin fort is a full on Temple of Selûne. They are being set up as big players in the plot but it's not going anywhere and the conflict between them isn't realized even though you have a Sharran in the party.

They're also missing the mark on Shadowheart's visual transformation once you find out. She could turn from looking ordinary to wearing Sharran armor to really drive the reveal home. But no. How can she transform when she already had a Sharran armor and a symbol on her forehead before we were supposed to know?

It's almost like they think the Origin stories justify some really lackluster writing. Because you can play as her, there can be no secrets and they're not even trying. If this is what it means to have playable companions in an RPG, I don't ever want to see this feature in a game again.

edit: The cringe level with Astarion's vampire "reveal" is just as high as with Shadowheart's "reveal". This kind of writing really doesn't help you like these characters at all. Although with Astarion it's more of a visual problem. They could still correct it and give him a "high elf" form without the fangs and red eyes and the character would be much better for it.

Another problem with those reveals (and other things like the "romance") is that they happen too fast. No idea if that is because Larian wanted to cram it into the EA, but after a few hours you don't have a connection to the characters (and the way most characters behave certainly does not help) and thus you do not care about the big reveal. And that is in addition to you never really have a reason to believe that they are anything else because its so obvious.

Compare that to Wrath of the Righteous

Spot on. Don't care about the big reveals, and don't believe in the forced romances without any foundation. I'd just like to ask the writers why they are rushing so much and the gameplay designers why they feel they must create so many gimmicks and hoops and loops for combat. I'd like to believe the story and the characters.

If they can't get this stuff right, BG3 will just be a "fun romp" with funny combat with easy repetitive exploits. It needs to be much more than that.

No, but you +1'd the person who decided they were the judge, didn't you? I don't know what +1 means in Czech, but in the languages I do speak, it does not typically mean "I completely disagree".

Obviously the "form a line" thing is just a momentary thing of very minor importance, a small wrinkle that feels a bit daft but whatever, whereas the way Shadowheart's narrative is played has a lot bigger impact since it's being done over hours and affects a major character. Obviously there's a difference.

But for the purpose of "weird things that makes one cringe", wouldn't you say that a somewhat seasoned mercenary commander telling his one remaining melee grunt to "form a line" is a bit silly? It's like having a Roman commander tell his one surviving legionary to form a testudo. An order to "form a line" delivered in good form, with authority, sounds like something a combat veteran in command might say, but the comment doesn't fit the actual context in which it is being used, and the actual execution of said line doesn't help. "Form lines" or "Form up" or "Hold the corner" would all have worked a little better, particularly if he'd then also held the corner with his grunt and kept the gobbos off the archer.

But yes, this is indeed a very, very minor thing. It's still a bit silly, though. At least I personally think so.

Aradin clearly isn't the sharpest tool in the shed or the best commander. His "form the line" line actually makes sense in that context. He's trying to lead his band in a stressful situation even though he has little grasp of military tactics. And the line is so unimportant we shouldn't really be talking about it but there I go.

There was countless topics about this ...
Yes players are used to get "romance that need to be build through whole game just to get that sweet single night together" ... and no, that is not what we are geting (with most companions) here ... what we are geting here is "im horny, wanna bang? OK" kind of thing (again, not with all companions).

Wich is perfectly okey and understandable ... if you dont want that kind of relationship, simply pick "go sleep alone". :P

I just love how is this topic full of trying to catch each other and failing.

Exactly as you said ... it does not mean "i completely disagree" ... indeed it means the oposite "i completely agree" ...
Yet, and i admit i might be wrong on how this works in english ... but in languages i speak good enough, agreeing with someone judgement is still something different, than being a judge yourself. :P

So ... cute effort, but missed again ... hope you have as much fun as i do.

Sounds to me almost like you also agree with judgement ...
Carefull now, you could fall into your own trap. :P

Well, if you really wish to know all you need to do is read previous conversations.

But ... no.
It depends on few factors you need to keep in mind:

First of all is situation ...
Do you have time to concider your situation, find a best strategy and potentialy discuss it with others ... or are you in heat of battle, where you yell the first things that come to your mind, so at least something is happening? :P > B is corect.

Second is length of order ...
I mean we all know that Goblin is yelling orders for every type of trooper he have with him ... and i dunno about you, but i was allways like "Ugh, shut up and die finaly ... i want to play, not watch your monologue here." > So, even tho "cover our archer" would make more sence and being lot more fiting ... short order is better here once again.

Third there is definition ...
As far as i know, once you have at least two people, they can "form a line" ... it would be incredibly short line no doubt about it, but it will be a line. > So his order makes perfect sence.

Then there is question about importance ...
As we both agreed allready, this is so minor problem so even if he would indeed yell "form a testudo" i would quite honestly not even care.

And last but not least, what else do you want? ...
I mean so far nobody was able to submit single as short and more effective comand (and i admit that by saying nobody i mean Maximuuus, since noone else even cared enough) ... so, until you have any replacement in mind, even this is still better than him being silence with subtitles on screen saying:
"Cinematic pending, we are curently trying to figure some comand that would fit to give single soldier in such screwed situation Aradin and his group are."

Well, i was unable to find minimum number of Soldiers need to form tetudo ... but i would dare to say that this formation would be litteraly impossible with two soldiers.
So, there is difference. :P

What do you mean actual execution?
I dont claim that i was in army (in czech we dont have compulsory military service anymore) but as far as i know, since my Sibling is working in military in last few years, formations are codenamed ...

So even the fact that he runned forward during yelling that order might be fitting the formation since "line" could easily be just fomration that is suppose to keep meele enemies occupied, while ranged damage dealers kill the others.

Cant imagine how "form lines" would be better, if people are complaining that you are unable to form single line.
Using plural would make this whole situation even more silly.

"Form up" i like ... that would be fitting, presuming they use only single formation, wich would be also silly, just for different reasons.

"Hold the corner" ... i mean this isnt bad ... but since AI is forcing meele characters to push enemies out of that corner, run towards them and fight there ... its not quite what will happen.

Still "form a line" seem best to me, sory. :-/

How does that solve the problem? It's like arguing that if people don't want to eat a shit sandwich, they should just starve to death. That's an argument that justifies even the most shitty of decisions in even the shittiest of games. Don't like pay to win bullshit? Just grind or fuck off and play something else. Don't like loot box gambling? Just fuck then.

I mean, pardon my blunt speech but rather than explaining how something is not actually a problem, what you are saying is literally that if people don't like the taste of the backside of a dog then they should just not play the game, ignoring how doggie bottom is fairly universally considered bad.

To put this bluntly, you're getting into very slippery territory if you want to argue that just being moral support of an action totally alleviates you of the moral consequences of said action. More clearly put, if someone is being a bully towards someone else and you go pat the bully on the back and say "well done, I totally agree with what you did", you're clearly not better than the bully, are you?

So yeah, cute effort with the lame "I wasn't me", but that was the catchfrase in a song a while back about a guy who feels bad about cheating on his girlfriend. It's not actually a rebuttal in this particular situation. And it's frankly a bit silly that I even have to explain that.

I'm not going to cut this into bits, because that's just aggravating to look at. Yes, he had time to consider his tactical situation because there's clearly not much to consider. Running is out, individual engagement means dying in detail, so the only option is a defensive stance with focus on coherency. Length of order is a rebuttal that makes no sense. If they have time to form up then he has the time to give a coherent order, and indeed giving something that is not a coherent order is the hallmark of a rubbish commander that should be demoted on the spot. This is not good guys and bad guys in the backyard with wooden swords, this is life or death, do or die horribly kind of stuff.

And then definition, "form a line" means forming a battle line rather than standing around like a mob. A line is singular and in context it has to be in formation, meaning both grunts stand shoulder to shoulder. Apparently no order is given to the archer or the archer willfully disobeys a direct order. Neither is good. Ordering to "Form up" means they fight in formation but use their own judgment to find their place in the formation. Ordering to "form lines", notice the plural, means forming up according to type. It's been done since the Romans so yes, warriors with any kind of training, even mercs for rent, would certainly understand the concept intuitively and implicitly.

Execution, do the three mercs then following the tactics ordered by the commander? They do not. They're not holding a tight formation in the corner where the archer is shielded and the walls protect their flanks. They are not making the numerical advantage of the enemy count for as little as possible. They are not making themselves hard to flank and gang up on.

Lastly, two people cannot possibly manage to not form a line. They could be running in zig-zag and they'd still be forming a line. So the argument that two people can form a line literally makes no sense, because could they ever not do that? If that's the interpretation then he might as well have shouted "continue to exist!!" and the effect would be the same. Point being, it's just not a good order. And despite all the creative back-bending of you and others, there's still no way to interpret it as a good order.

If your argument for him talking nonsense is that he's just talking in code then any discussion at any time becomes irrelevant because anything is just code. At that point you've essentially accepted any disconnect at any time between what is said by characters and what they do, because it's just code. It extremely obviously makes zero sense to even have that communication happen in the first place in a medium like a game if the communication isn't coherent or "in a code" that is never given to the player. This is so silly that it pretty much has to be bait.

By the by, modern militaries don't fight in formations like this. It worked great with medieval weapons. It is awful when some jerk with a machinegun can wipe everybody out in an instant. Or multiple jerks with machineguns. Or some joker with a mortar. Or an absolute comedian with a precision rifle from half a mile away. Or tank people, artillery people, something airborne, or even a clown with a radio-detonated device and binoculars. You get the picture, I'm sure. If not, ask your sibling.

That is completely different topic ...
We were not talking here about any moral consequences ... just about action itself.

I mean if i see you that you broke a window by a ball and dont tell on you ... im your acomplice, and i share guilt (if they find out) no doubt about that.
But i still didnt broke it.

I gues it depends on situation ...
I know you wish to put me into bad light ... but it would not go so easly ...

To use your own example against you:
I could aswell claim that Maximuuus was bullying Larian for leting Aradin use bad line ... someone else stood for Larian and told him to stop ... and i shoved my support for the person who was against bullying ... how is that bad thing? :P
See? Its all matter of perspective.

But if you wish clear answer for your twisted example ...
Then no ... supporting bullying is no better than bullying itself ... aswell as not acting against it while we withness it, not helping bullyed person after that act, or god helps encouraging bullyed person to not report that to people who have actualy power to stop that.

What exactly is lame on claiming that you didnt do something you didnt do?
Seems perfectly reasonable to me. O_o

I am ... bcs funny enough, i have the same feeling for huge wall of text that is refering to something that is half monitor far from it.
I mean this text in particular isnt "so huge" ... but anyway.

That would be true ... asuming Aradin is one ultimate leader of them all ...
When we later talked to that Archer woman she litteraly said that someone died and then say "as if i didnt teach him better" ...

SO what if ... and yes we are in purely speculative teritory here ... Aradin and that Archer lady wich name i dont even remember are actualy equal in chain of comand? :P Aradin give order to his last subordinate, and ignored her bcs he knew she would be ignoring him aswell.

So basicaly stand wherever you wish ... i dont see much reason for such order. O_o

That is good argument and i like it!
Except it could be used without single change for "Form a line" aswell.

They are not suppose to hold tight formation ... the meele guys are suppose to "form a line" to hold meele goblins in their effort to get close to Archer ... and that is exactly happening. O_o
Where did you get tight formation?

Exactly ...

That is the funny part, there is no argue here.
Most of us agree that it was not good order ... we argue that it make sence that Aradin gave this order.

I believe i have seen some points even in your posts (not sure tho) things about hectic situation, poor leader qualities, etc. etc.
Its all part of bigger picture.

That was a joke.
I try to mark them more clearly.

True ... but for some reaason they still train them.
(I mean line formation, tight formation, spread formation, etc.)

No, it's really not, and that's part of the issue.

Saying what is intended or what is 'supposed' to happen is the player mapping their personal headcanon into the space.

What we Have, is one person giving a command that, in the circumstance it is in, makes little to no real sense and did not perform any 'work' for the scene or the cinematic story-telling. It served no purpose in that sense.

What it then does is detracts from the scene as a whole, because, after shouting the line and standing next to one of his two companions... immediately after, still within the same pre-rendered and pre-choreographed cut scene... he runs forward and breaks 'rank' entirely, giving complete disregard to his own command. This is a large part of what makes it ridiculous from a writing and scene-delivery perspective (not talking about in universe here, talking about the experience of the scene from a viewer's perspective.)

There is a thread already that breaks this down in a very intelligent manner, (Here) with a video to help discuss it, and I know you are aware of it already, Ragnarok.


If it looks like it, and sounds like it, then take a step back and consider carefully whether there's anything to be gained by biting. Taking a moment to refocus and think about why you're continuing an argument and if it's worth doing, or if you really want to, can save a lot of headaches, and it can help us all keep on topic without getting pulled into tangential back-and-forths that don't go anywhere.

The thing is, some person made the argument that in a topic where people are pointing out disconnects in game stuff, those people are in fact actually just bending over backwards to hate on the game. And you gave that person a +1. So while you didn't post the comment, you expressed that you agree with it.

And I'm not saying this to "put you in a bad light". That would mean nothing to me. I care about the game. BG2 was amazing and I want BG3 to be as good. Anyone giving Larian a lenient time and making excuses for why something is okay at a 7/10 instead of needing to be 10/10 can go give Crusher a foot massage, as far as I'm concerned. That's my mindset. Lacksadaisical halfassery is some times acceptable, but not in Baldur's Gate.

Yeah, I sort of figured you might. But now imagine if I did the same thing with your 25 separate quotes, except some of them need more detail, so my comment has 35 quotes. And then you reply, because why not, and now we have 40 or 45 quotes in total. And at some point, one of us or both of us will lose track of the general plot and just start arguing for the sake of arguing. And then it becomes an endless battle of will and spare time that will drive the poor moderators up a wall since they have to check that we don't go out of bounds.

Anyway, I much prefer writing longer blobs of text (with appropriate white space, of course) over having constant breakups that I respond to with one or two lines of text. It's a personal failing of mine, I suppose, that I have this brilliant tendency of never saying with just a few words what could be written out in glorious detail with at least twenty or thirty. Comes from being a sucky handwriter, I guess. Back when I was handwriting essays, I was the tersest little brat you can imagine. But then we got computers and suddenly little kid me could actually keep up (and surpass by some margin) the more coordinated kids with great handwriting.

This is possible. But Aradin does act a whole lot like he's a leader, he's the one talking to the tieflings, and he's the one talking to the player party. My alternative theory, Aradin is in charge but the people he's in charge of have different levels of veterancy. The archer lady is a veteran, the dead fellow is a relatively new hire in the group that she trained but apparently didn't train well enough.

On the first one, "form up" doesn't mean "stand where you like", it means "get into formation and use you best judgment to find your position in the formation". Just standing around somewhere fails on the formation aspect. The second one, forming lines means separating into melee grunts and archers. "Form a line" takes some stretching to convey that same information.

Whenever I play this scene, Aradin gets off the line and the archer is exposed and eventually engaged in melee. They do not hug the corner and make it difficult for the enemy to flank them. Which is the one sensible thing they could do when caught out like that. Forming a line makes no sense whatsoever unless they try to keep their very tiny formation as tight as possible and then limit the room on the flanks, creating a very small pocket from which the archer can shoot without interruption, while the gobbos will have a hard time finding the room to engage.

Dang it. Yeah, didn't catch that one. Will try harder next time.

I think i give up this one.
I mean i could go on, but i start to feel like we are running in circle here, and i to my own surprise dont wish to continue ... i believe i made myself clear enough in both topic My support someones judgement, and Aradins order so ... there is nothing else to say from my side.

SO ... you win i gues.