Larian Studios
Posted By: Tuco Why games can't stick to their own premises? - 11/11/20 01:53 AM
Guess I made the title inflamatory enough.

Anyway, I was thinking about Gale's personal quest. The way he has this contrived system to resurrect him in case he dies, etc.
And then you talk to him and learn more details about his condition, but above all, the fact that...


...keeping him dead for more than two days would be incredibly dangerous. That the magic forces at play inside his body would turn him basically into a nuke bomb capable to leveling an entire area and kill people in the hundreds, maybe thousands if the region is crowded enough.

So OF COURSE any self respecting RPG player will put this to the test. Kill him, leave him on the ground, rest for two, three, four days, expecting to wake up a morning with the scene of a massive explosion, or with a lot of NPCs dead, or HELL, even just with a lazy pop-up saying "You died in a massive explosion, reload your game".

And guess what? Yeah. Nothing fucking happens.

Either the story will reveal he's lying to you about this "side effect" (meh?) or worse, the game doesn't have the courage to inconvenience the player for the sake to keep consistency with its own narrative (MEHH!).


Needless to say this isn't an isolated example, just one of the most immediately notable ones, but games do this stuff all the times.

"Oh, it's urgent, you are risking a whole lot if you don't hurry". Except don't worry too much, we are never actually going to do anything about this.
"What? You are making a powerful enemy in a noble family? Sounds bad". Except there will hardly ever be a meaningful follow up except from two unthreatening hired thugs ambushing you two hours later.
"Oh, you need a very specific and bizarre ritual to ress your companion? You better pay attention to it!". Except any random-ass revivify scroll will do the job just fine (but FINE, I can see the reasoning for this one).
Etc, etc.

I can't be the only one who perceives these half-assed timid attempts to suggest "urgency" and "great danger" without the proper courage to inconvenience the player, by committing to them, as a bit of spineless cop out.
yeah, and my guess is even if you / we kill them all, we will see them again in act 2. well alive.

not feeding him magical item also do nothing.
Originally Posted by Evil_it_Self
yeah, and my guess is even if you / we kill them all, we will see them again in act 2. well alive.

A narrative expedient where "if we leave him dead he will be saved by someone else and come back to bite us later" would already work better.

The thing is: nothing like this happens. He doesn't disappear setting the foundations for "Ill be back, bitch".
The guy's corpse just stays on the ground for days with absolute no consequence, in spite of the game clearly telling us of the risk involved.
Originally Posted by Tuco
Guess I made the title inflamatory enough.

Anyway, I was thinking about Gale's personal quest. The way he has this contrived system to resurrect him in case he dies, etc.
And then you talk to him and learn more details about his condition, but above all, the fact that...


...keeping him dead for more than two days would be incredibly dangerous. That the magic forces at play inside his body would turn him basically into a nuke bomb capable to leveling an entire area and kill people in the hundreds, maybe thousands if the region is crowded enough.

So OF COURSE any self respecting RPG player will put this to the test. Kill him, leave him on the ground, rest for two, three, four days, expecting to wake up a morning with the scene of a massive explosion, or with a lot of NPCs dead, or HELL, even just with a lazy pop-up saying "You died in a massive explosion, reload your game".

And guess what? Yeah. Nothing fucking happens.

Either the story will reveal he's lying to you about this "side effect" (meh?) or worse, the game doesn't have the courage to inconvenience the player for the sake to keep consistency with its own narrative (MEHH!).


Needless to say this isn't an isolated example, just one of the most immediately notable ones, but games do this stuff all the times.

"Oh, it's urgent, you are risking a whole lot if you don't hurry". Except don't worry too much, we are never actually going to do anything about this.
"What? You are making a powerful enemy in a noble family? Sounds bad". Except there will hardly ever be a meaningful follow up.
"Oh, you need a very specific and bizarre ritual to ress your companion? You better pay attention to it!". Except any random-ass revivify scroll will do the job just fine (but FINE, I can see the reasoning for this one).
Etc, etc.

I can't be the only one who perceives these half-assed timid attempts to suggest "urgency" and "great danger" without the proper courage to inconvenience the player, by committing to them, as a bit of spineless cop out.


The games are like that. Games very often tell you to hurry up or otherwise (put the reason here).
It doesn't matter if the evil dragon is attacking the city (my favorite example) or if your evil brother is about to start a devastating war to become a god, or if your sister has been kidnapped by a mad mage who will most likely kill her, however you always have time to explore the entire map, pick up cabbage from the field or whatever you want.
The lapse of time in games has always been conventional. It's hard to find a game (not even an RPG) that would really force the player to hurry. What would be the point of wasting resources creating a lot of side content if the player felt they had to rush the main story otherwise they would lose?
Not only is the player happy when he can play as he wants, but the developers are also happy that They havnt wasted time creating content that the player will never see.
You can give the player up to 10x more time than he really needs, but he will still feel that he has to rush, which will probably not make him have too much fun.
Most players really don't like time limits.

ps. I'm not referring to this particular quest, but more to the time limits in general.


Originally Posted by Rhobar121


The games are like that. Games very often tell you to hurry up or otherwise (put the reason here).

Yeah, which doesn't mean they need to be. Also, please note that "urgency" is just one angle of the topic.
The point is setting stakes and then ignoring them completely. Which makes you wonder why to set them to begin with.

Quote
What would be the point of wasting resources creating a lot of side content if the player felt they had to rush the main story otherwise they would lose?

No design that "forces players to skip content" is particularly appealing, but the good news is that you absolutely don't need to do it to have internal coherence.
Setting some limitation only on a specific, maybe even optional sub-goal, is not going to force you to skip half of the game's content. You could also be forgiving with your restrictions.
For instance an example I already mentioned several times is how Kingmaker gives you three months to complete your first main objective... Which is WAY, WAY more than what you need (and in fact you can complete that part of the game under a month for an extra reward and still do 100% of the content up to that point).

In general it's fine to leave time to the player to... well, take his time, as long as you don't keep repeating him how much he needs to run.


Quote
You can give the player up to 10x more time than he really needs

Which is fine? The goal isn't to punish the player, but to live up to the stakes you set up and be consistent with them.

Quote
but he will still feel that he has to rush, which will probably not make him have too much fun.
Most players really don't like time limits.

Aside for the fact that they can fuck off into Oblvion and I disagree with them... I think you are focusing on "time limits" a bit too much here. The point wasn't "put the player on a tight clock". It's "if you say that something bad will happen, makes it sure it actually happens if we fuck up badly".
Otherwise is just... Condescending game design, I'd say.

Also, fun fact: BG3 already has "time limits" on some quests and optional objective, and their current implementation is even less forgiving than what I'm suggesting.
Here's a list about act 1 from a dataminer:

ong rest while druid grove is initially under attack -> all outsiders die
Long rest and anyone at the grove has died due to goblin raiding parties -> they get buried
Long rest after starting Harpy event -> kid is eaten
Long rest after entering druid grove without killing bugbear assassin -> begins killing refugees
Long rest without resolving the confrontation right after you enter the grove -> autoresolves
Long rest after grunting kid disappears -> reappears
Goblin "warpaint" on -> removed
Goblin priest confronted and not killed -> goblin temple on alert
Poisoning goblins -> goblins are poisoned
something with goblin torturers
hag well water makes you sick after a rest
swamp brothers die after a long rest
shadowheart can only be asked about shar once a day
a lot of party banter after doing things then resting(probably hundreds)
tavern burns down
lots of tadpole stuff
dog goes to camp
act 2 stuff I don't want to spoil for myself so I skipped
any quest that registers for a night update(probably a lot?)
lots of companion stuff...


+1
I don't really care for Gale's personal quest, but yeah, that's a pretty big loop hole. It's a relatively easy fix though - even just by despawning his corpse and have the PC react to it quickly would be fix it.

The other one is big one that bugs me is the "die and revive" method of tadpole removal. Mainly because the game went out of its way to introduce this plot-hole in. Unless, this was all done intentionally - i.e. the main characters' tadpoles are somehow different (hence why they don't leave). But that is pure head-canon right now.


Many RPGs create a problem for themselves when they introduce an urgent, main-motivator in a world loaded with sidequests. I will give BG3 credit for doing a better-than-average job of forcing initial urgency while giving you an excuse to explore/sidequest. Most major side quests in BG3 are at least framed as potential solutions to your problem (the ruins, the druids, the goblins, the hag, etc).

Sure, the story does walk-back on the whole "urgency" thing a bit by the end of the EA, but you didn't know that until you got there, and it was enough to kickstart a whole variety of quests.

That aspect, at least, is a bit better than BG2 when there was a clear disconnect with further side questing in Ch. 2 once you've got the 20k, or in Ch. 6 since you're missing a chunk of your soul.
+1
I actually didn't try to leave him dead, but you bring up a good point. a small cutscene of BG exploding, or him coming to find you later maybe as unique encounter sound good.
Yep and here we are 100 years after BG1 and still no Wyrm spreading a plague killing everyone. I mean if they weren’t going to script and add every detail by early access why even bother calling it a Baldur’s Gate game, just call it ‘Early Access Not Complete 50 Hour of Content’ and be done with

“The Wyrm shall wander the earth and such a pestilence will follow in his wake, that all that know of his passing shall be struck down by the plague. So sayeth the wise Alaundo.” - Voice of the East
Every video game has some ludonarrative dissonance like this. Good designers try to eliminate as much of it as possible, but there's always some. Hopefully Larian will make a few passes between now and launch that look for this kind of thing.
+1 to OP ... i would love to see some consequences here ...

Originally Posted by Evil_it_Self
not feeding him magical item also do nothing.

You are not even able to feed him magical item, if he dont likes you enough to unlock that conversation ...
In mine pure-evil Drow playthrough Gale didnt like me at all, he was keep talking about needing magical artefacts, the threatened that he would leave if i dont offer him any, and he sounded more and more urgent with every dialogue ... that was all good, i liked it ... but anyway, i was not able to give him anything even if i wanted to. laugh
Originally Posted by Tuco
Guess I made the title inflamatory enough.

Anyway, I was thinking about Gale's personal quest. The way he has this contrived system to resurrect him in case he dies, etc.
And then you talk to him and learn more details about his condition, but above all, the fact that...


...keeping him dead for more than two days would be incredibly dangerous. That the magic forces at play inside his body would turn him basically into a nuke bomb capable to leveling an entire area and kill people in the hundreds, maybe thousands if the region is crowded enough.

So OF COURSE any self respecting RPG player will put this to the test. Kill him, leave him on the ground, rest for two, three, four days, expecting to wake up a morning with the scene of a massive explosion, or with a lot of NPCs dead, or HELL, even just with a lazy pop-up saying "You died in a massive explosion, reload your game".

And guess what? Yeah. Nothing fucking happens.

Either the story will reveal he's lying to you about this "side effect" (meh?) or worse, the game doesn't have the courage to inconvenience the player for the sake to keep consistency with its own narrative (MEHH!).


Needless to say this isn't an isolated example, just one of the most immediately notable ones, but games do this stuff all the times.

"Oh, it's urgent, you are risking a whole lot if you don't hurry". Except don't worry too much, we are never actually going to do anything about this.
"What? You are making a powerful enemy in a noble family? Sounds bad". Except there will hardly ever be a meaningful follow up except from two unthreatening hired thugs ambushing you two hours later.
"Oh, you need a very specific and bizarre ritual to ress your companion? You better pay attention to it!". Except any random-ass revivify scroll will do the job just fine (but FINE, I can see the reasoning for this one).
Etc, etc.

I can't be the only one who perceives these half-assed timid attempts to suggest "urgency" and "great danger" without the proper courage to inconvenience the player, by committing to them, as a bit of spineless cop out.


I'm pretty sure something happens, like his body turns into necrotic fire or something. I wouldn't worry about it to much, half the stuff isn't even finished since you know EARLY ACCESS!!!!!!!!!
Everytime My friend's and I killed Gale in our multiplayer game, it removed the ability to save. I had assumed this was due to the whole turning into a bomb thing, but I guess it doesnt happen in single player
Originally Posted by fallenj
[quote=Tuco]

I'm pretty sure something happens, like his body turns into necrotic fire or something.

Yeah, that happens in the very same instant he dies and it has NOTHING to do with what we are talking here, which are the long terms consequences he warns you about.

Quote
I wouldn't worry about it to much, half the stuff isn't even finished since you know EARLY ACCESS!!!!!!!!!


Oh, right, I almost forgot. Thank god someone reminded me it's

EARLY ACCESS.

Guess only after release it will be finally the proper time to point it out.

Jesus Fucking Christ.
Originally Posted by Tuco
Originally Posted by fallenj
[quote=Tuco]

I'm pretty sure something happens, like his body turns into necrotic fire or something.

Yeah, that happens in the very same instant he dies and it has NOTHING to do with what we are talking here, which are the long terms consequences he warns you about.

Quote
I wouldn't worry about it to much, half the stuff isn't even finished since you know EARLY ACCESS!!!!!!!!!


Oh, right, I almost forgot. Thank god someone reminded me it's

EARLY ACCESS.

Guess only after release it will be finally the proper time to point it out.

Jesus Fucking Christ.


started to wonder...your welcome btw

also do you really think the company would in anyway skip or just happen to have a brain fart to one of the companions storylines? like really...really really
Reminds me of literally every other game ever made where the antagonist is going to destroy the world and you can still rest 20x in row at the Inn - i have never seen that as an issue though
Originally Posted by Maldurin
Reminds me of literally every other game ever made where the antagonist is going to destroy the world and you can still rest 20x in row at the Inn - i have never seen that as an issue though

That's a bit different, isn't it?
We aren't talking about "You better hurry or the bad guy will win in the end".
We are talking about a specific claim ("If I stay dead two days the entire region goes nuclear") and then literally nothing happens if you put the claim to the test.

Originally Posted by fallenj


started to wonder...your welcome btw

also do you really think the company would in anyway skip or just happen to have a brain fart to one of the companions storylines? like really...really really

Look, maybe you missed it but in case it wasn't clear I was actually mocking you, because "it's early access" is not a legitimate explanation, it's a stupid, pointless excuse.
Originally Posted by Tuco
Originally Posted by Maldurin
Reminds me of literally every other game ever made where the antagonist is going to destroy the world and you can still rest 20x in row at the Inn - i have never seen that as an issue though

That's a bit different, isn't it?
We aren't talking about "You better hurry or the bad guy will win in the end".
We are talking about a specific claim ("If I stay dead two days the entire region goes nuclear") and then literally nothing happens if you put the claim to the test.

Originally Posted by fallenj


started to wonder...your welcome btw

also do you really think the company would in anyway skip or just happen to have a brain fart to one of the companions storylines? like really...really really

Look, maybe you missed it but in case it wasn't clear I was actually mocking you, because "it's early access" is not a legitimate explanation, it's a stupid, pointless excuse.

LOL, I'm going to bed Tuco, have a nice night/day/whatever
What if Gale is wrong?
What if the absorbtion is a con to feed power into, whatever it is, but the whole explosion ting just isn't real and Gale doesn't know it becuse he has been fooled into believeing it?

Just saying, because if it is all true, then yea ya grumpy sod Tuco, I agree with you. He should level the place after two days dead, or should dissapear because someone else sorted him.
So on one of my play throughs, Gale went postal and I had to put him down. Just saying...killing him near my sleeping bags was probably not the best choice.
Originally Posted by Tuco

We are talking about a specific claim ("If I stay dead two days the entire region goes nuclear") and then literally nothing happens if you put the claim to the test.


Well it's not like Gale could put his hypothesis to test himself, so he'd not know either way. He might believe it (and if the datamining thread is correct, seems like he does), but this doesn't need to make it true.

Now if you leave Gale in the ditch for a week or so, and then you resurrect him and can't use that as an argument that is the plothole.
I would for more examples because I don't understand what you mean. Gale is last minute addition to the early access so I imagine they didn't have much time to actually put their concepts of him into practice. I'll also add that the gale mechanics as they are now are super lame. But you know... Early access.
Originally Posted by Abits
I would for more examples because I don't understand what you mean. Gale is last minute addition to the early access so I imagine they didn't have much time to actually put their concepts of him into practice. I'll also add that the gale mechanics as they are now are super lame. But you know... Early access.

Yeah I mean given how important his condition is, you would assume he would make it HIS priority to get artifacts and thus either Artifacts in his inventory should dissapear, or he should leave you after a while if you don't deliver, I mean this is to him critical!!

I'm also willing to put this down to EA, but as neat as the idea could be, it definitely needs work if he is to be a companion. The concept might work better as the main character (i.e. if you pick him as an origin character), but other than the potential interesting concept, I feel it should come with some form of reward, because it's really debillitating to have to lose your magical artifacts with no reward other than not dying. Not sure I would want to hamper myself that way other than out of intruige.
Some of OP criticism could be dismissed as “it’s always like that”. There is limited amount of change that a campaign can do to accommodate players choices and that is expected. A lot of reactivity, urgency or danger is smoke & mirrors. I don’t think it is a bad thing, but it’s needs to be effective. I though D:OS2 did it really, really poorly (and to be fair I will point to PoE2 having really really bad reactivity to 1st PoE1 choices). The game doesn’t need to react to everything, but of it hints that something will have consequences and then it doesn’t, it sucks. Having a companion be a magic bomb puzzles me as an idea itself, though maybe it works better in game then on paper. Being an EA we might not know how thing will play out in 1.0, but big things like that tend to not work - would I want to have an NPC who will end the campaign if he is dead for too long?
I said this in another thread. My first instinct upon learning he was a bomb that could level waterdeep was "mmm that could prove handy". Lets stick him in the goblin camp, have him die and hide in the underdark for abit. What happened was his necrotic aura killed a bunch of goblins that pathed though him and a few more that came to investigate, he is actually quite a good AoE sucide bomber. Cast jump on him, stick him super high up with low HP and jump on the gith patrol or any other boss for that matter. Resurrect the clown and do it again, It's not easy being cheesy. Lol.
Originally Posted by Wormerine
Some of OP criticism could be dismissed as “it’s always like that”. There is limited amount of change that a campaign can do to accommodate players choices and that is expected. A lot of reactivity, urgency or danger is smoke & mirrors. I don’t think it is a bad thing, but it’s needs to be effective. I though D:OS2 did it really, really poorly (and to be fair I will point to PoE2 having really really bad reactivity to 1st PoE1 choices). The game doesn’t need to react to everything, but of it hints that something will have consequences and then it doesn’t, it sucks. Having a companion be a magic bomb puzzles me as an idea itself, though maybe it works better in game then on paper. Being an EA we might not know how thing will play out in 1.0, but big things like that tend to not work - would I want to have an NPC who will end the campaign if he is dead for too long?

It depends whether we might see more risk vs reward going forward with Gale's character.
If it's just a throw away thing, or it's a lie or whatnot, the truth will out and no one will pick him other than for the vague interest of experiencing the story arc, UNLESS something big comes as a pay off. What if helping Gale does grant him and by proxy you, the opportunity to meet Mystra? Or or or... the point is right now in EA it makes little gaming sense to have him around as he is far more cost than his intersting persona is worth.

The key aspect though surely is CURRENTLY.
Originally Posted by Soul-Scar
I said this in another thread. My first instinct upon learning he was a bomb that could level waterdeep was "mmm that could prove handy". Lets stick him in the goblin camp, have him die and hide in the underdark for abit. What happened was his necrotic aura killed a bunch of goblins that pathed though him and a few more that came to investigate, he is actually quite a good AoE sucide bomber. Cast jump on him, stick him super high up with low HP and jump on the gith patrol or any other boss for that matter. Resurrect the clown and do it again, It's not easy being cheesy. Lol.

Ooh I do like the idea of being able to "use" Gale in an evil playthrough as some form of weapon of mass destruction.
Originally Posted by Riandor
Originally Posted by Soul-Scar
I said this in another thread. My first instinct upon learning he was a bomb that could level waterdeep was "mmm that could prove handy". Lets stick him in the goblin camp, have him die and hide in the underdark for abit. What happened was his necrotic aura killed a bunch of goblins that pathed though him and a few more that came to investigate, he is actually quite a good AoE sucide bomber. Cast jump on him, stick him super high up with low HP and jump on the gith patrol or any other boss for that matter. Resurrect the clown and do it again, It's not easy being cheesy. Lol.

Ooh I do like the idea of being able to "use" Gale in an evil playthrough as some form of weapon of mass destruction.


I mean "evil" is generally more practical. In my opinion keeping a mobile nuke with you because of some weird moral altrusim isn't "good" it is idiotic. He also suggested to my Drow character that he would go to the underdark if he got heartburn. I was like, where is the option to stab his arse and mail him to waterdeep? You would be the most feared Drow in the history of Lolth. Nobody would have a scooby doo why Waterdeep just blew up other than "A Drow named 'me' had an amazon parcel delivered".
Originally Posted by Soul-Scar
Originally Posted by Riandor
Originally Posted by Soul-Scar
I said this in another thread. My first instinct upon learning he was a bomb that could level waterdeep was "mmm that could prove handy". Lets stick him in the goblin camp, have him die and hide in the underdark for abit. What happened was his necrotic aura killed a bunch of goblins that pathed though him and a few more that came to investigate, he is actually quite a good AoE sucide bomber. Cast jump on him, stick him super high up with low HP and jump on the gith patrol or any other boss for that matter. Resurrect the clown and do it again, It's not easy being cheesy. Lol.

Ooh I do like the idea of being able to "use" Gale in an evil playthrough as some form of weapon of mass destruction.


I mean "evil" is generally more practical. In my opinion keeping a mobile nuke with you because of some weird moral altrusim isn't "good" it is idiotic. He also suggested to my Drow character that he would go to the underdark if he got heartburn. I was like, where is the option to stab his arse and mail him to waterdeep? You would be the most feared Drow in the history of Lolth. Nobody would have a scooby doo why Waterdeep just blew up other than "A Drow named 'me' had an amazon parcel delivered".



You can't do that, all the mail men are dying like flies in Act 1 frown
"It's always like that" -- that doesn't mean it's good or that we should settle for it. It just means developers favour lazy writing rather than good story-telling.

If anyone is interested in a term for this phenomenon, by the way; I believe it falls under ludo-narrative dissonance.
It's best not to assume that things which NPCs say are objective facts. Lots of times, they could be wrong. Lots of times, they could be lying. If I wanted to make sure people would always resurrect me, maybe I'd say that I was a time bomb on death, too.
Yes, but we cant say whether it's true or not either way yet. So if it's true, this is still the time to bring it up and say that this isn't good writing and we want the game to be consistent with its own narrative.
I would say it's certainly better us highlighting that with "current information" it feels lacking or if you want, lazy... Hoever the devs might have a perfectly decent plan as to how this should play out, it just hasn't been implemented yet, or is but it's hidden behind the veil of Act2 and beyond.
Or they hadn't and they are reading these threads with interest and making notes. The former is the more likely, but hey, as we don't know we can only comment based on the info we have.

I am more curious as to why we should care though. I mean, I actually usually do without Gale as I find as a Ranger it was more useful to me to have Shadowheart, Laezel and then usually Astarion (though i had Wyll along for the Goblins for his story elements). As such I breezed through quite a few of the fights or even if I did die one always survived to Rez the others, given coin wasn't too hard to come by.

So why should I keep a Mage with a rather expensive upkeep in tow? For fear that If I don't save him he might detonate within my vicinity? Whatever that vicinity is? That currently at this stage is what feels off to me. Yeah I see why HE wants my help, it's easier to procure items with help than without, but for something so dangerous that is relying on the goodness and generosity of my character. Now if HE had something to offer me in return that might tip the balance. Maybe he knows something useful, or maybe he could be a level or two higher than us (which would also feel more fitting story wise) and thus he is more powerful but comes with a downside. I have to add at this point I am not a massive fan of all characters are the same level. Why? If I always party with the same team why aren't they more powerful?

Yeah It's a game and if you neglect characters for too long you wouldn't ever take them along, but still. Meh, not a big fan.
Originally Posted by Dexai
"It's always like that" -- that doesn't mean it's good or that we should settle for it. It just means developers favour lazy writing rather than good story-telling.

If anyone is interested in a term for this phenomenon, by the way; I believe it falls under ludo-narrative dissonance.

Thank god, some sense.

People, I already addressed the possibility that Gale could be lying (or just be wrong) in the very opening post of this thread. That would (disappointingly) resolve the issue, as long as the problem of the incongruence is addressed.
I also pointed in the very same opening post that I'm perfectly aware the issue is a recurring one in games like this, which in no way should also work as an implicit endorsement to keep doing it.

Also, I don't even want to hear any whine about the fact that "it's early access", because I don't think it's of any relevance. Pointing that as an excuse implies the optimist assumption that "this will surely be changed", a unfounded confidence I don't share to any degree.
In fact, I'm almost ready to take bets this will come all the way to the final game without ever being completely solved/addressed. Even AFTER the issue being pointed to the devs, let alone sitting meekly waiting for magical fixes.

Originally Posted by Tuco
Originally Posted by Dexai
"It's always like that" -- that doesn't mean it's good or that we should settle for it. It just means developers favour lazy writing rather than good story-telling.

If anyone is interested in a term for this phenomenon, by the way; I believe it falls under ludo-narrative dissonance.

Thank god, some sense.

People, I already addressed the possibility that Gale could be lying (or just be wrong) in the very opening post of this thread. That would (disappointingly) resolve the issue, as long as the problem of the incongruence is addressed.
I also pointed in the very same opening post that I'm perfectly aware the issue is a recurring one in games like this, which in no way should also work as an implicit endorsement to keep doing it.

Also, I don't even want to hear any whine about the fact that "it's early access", because I don't think it's of any relevance. Pointing that as an excuse implies the optimist assumption that "this will surely be changed", a unfounded confidence I don't share to any degree.
In fact, I'm almost ready to take bets this will come all the way to the final game without ever being completely solved/addressed. Even AFTER the issue being pointed to the devs, let alone sitting meekly waiting for magical fixes.


You can assume all you like, but the truth is none of us know. We are all speculating on how Gale’s story will play out.

And whilst it might be poor writing to leave his body for days on end and then resurrect as if nothing happened (or telling him it’s all hocus), but that doesn’t exclude the possibility that it you I have the foggiest what will it won’t be fixed.

Not that that should mean that we shouldn’t criticise or publish our thoughts, but your negativity here is just as unfounded as my optimism. So where does that leave us?!
Originally Posted by Riandor

Not that that should mean that we shouldn’t criticise or publish our thoughts, but your negativity here is just as unfounded as my optimism. So where does that leave us?!

I guess it leaves us with a bet I'm going to win with zero effort?

Also, I wish people could stop being unnecessarily over-defensive.
Not all criticism is an attempt to shit on the game and the studio working on it, and you guys aren't doing to the production ANY favor by blindly shielding it from critics.

The entire point on giving feedback in EA is pointing NOW the things we don't like or we find unconvincing so that they could (eventually) be fixed.
Originally Posted by Dexai
"It's always like that" -- that doesn't mean it's good or that we should settle for it. It just means developers favour lazy writing rather than good story-telling.

If anyone is interested in a term for this phenomenon, by the way; I believe it falls under ludo-narrative dissonance.

Wow this is great. I mean not great that we have it in BG3, but great we some common language
Let's not derail the thread too much. "Ludo-narrative dissonance" it's an umbrella terms that includes dozens of problems, anyway, even on the thematic side (i.e. "advocating for world peace when the entire game is about combat and fights" is a common example).
It's not exactly what this topic is about.

This is strictly mechanical. It's about the game setting a very specific stake, giving you a determined and not-uncertain deadline, warning you about the risks of acting in a certain way and then... Doing absolutely nothing with it even even when you are explicitly ignoring the warnings and putting to the test the limits of the situation.

Another example could be "If you complete this ritual a demon that will destroy the entire city will appear" and then you ignore the warning, complete the ritual and the demon summoned is a level 2 complete pushover that even the local innkeeper armed with a broom is able to solo.

I don't even want to hear an excuse about how that's "a typical problem with videogames that there's no way around" because it's bullshit. The only thing it actually needs to be addressed is to be recognized as a problem to solve.

30 years ago Ultima VII had the "doom" spell that would kill any living form in the game world. And guess what? You were warned about it and it would fucking do it, if you actually had the nonsense to cast it. The only characters remaining alive were Lord British and the Big Bad. And both had a say on what you did.

Did it completely screw your playthrough, forcing you to reload a previous game? OF COURSE it did.
Was it worth it? Abso-fucking-lutely. It was great.
+1 on the world destroying spell and pwning your game.

Bit of trivia -- that spell was actually part of the original plot of the final Ultima. You find out that the only way to kill the Master is to kill yourself because he is your shadow. So you set up the circle of life, you destroy the world and then the Avatar sacrifices himself to circle of life and the world is reborn from his virtue. But this time the world is remade so that everyone has a just a bit of the avatar inside them -- (cinematic for launch of Ultima online) I think Buffy the Vampire Slayer stole the premise for the finale.
Oh and the original question has been answered in the dataming thread.
+1
Originally Posted by KillerRabbit
Oh and the original question has been answered in the dataming thread.

Uh, no, I'd argue that it hasn't.
Just because a certain thing can happen, it doesn't mean it's going to retroactively deny everything else the game set up to that point.
Maybe they should Dead Rising it. You've a week to get the tadpole out or you die, if Gale dies and you don't revive him within two days he nukes the region, if you don't stop the Mind Flayer or Absolute plot within 2 weeks the world is destroyed/consumed/conquered.
Point 1 = The arguement that it's Early Access is a valid arguement. Since the game itself isn't complete then many aspects of the game are incomplete. Including anything they have planned for Gale, and the other Origin Characters, the plot, the story etc is incomplete. By the fact that it's incomplete means the part of nukeGale 3.0 hasn't been implemented, or is yet to be implemented.

Point 2 = I agree with several of OP's points. Mostly about how most video games have dropped the ball when it comes to consequences for ones actions. Yet I can see it's do to the fact many would stop playing games that force you to confront the consequences of ones actions. Therefore hurting the sale of a companies games. This is a sad fact, that people get so butt hurt and seek to blame the gaming company for their own actions.

Point 3 = much of what is said though it is speculation on the part of OP will sadly probably come about. Larian won't implement consequences for actions, and if they do the consequences will be rather pathetic. Kill mob A and have a level 2 rabbit come after you. Oh the fear it will induce.

As a harcore gamer who plays every game with permadeath I want to actually be challenged, want to feel the impact of my choices. If I kill Lord Snotsley I expect to have his family send out capable assassins, bounty hunters, etc after me. This is one thing that Skyrim in ways did right, by having the Dark Brotherhood come after you. Yet on that note, even if you were stealthy, noone else around, and succeeded your thiefing you had people come after you.

It would be a far better game if Larian added consequences for such things as leaving Gale to die for several days, but also having those consequences make sense. If you weren't caught stealing don't send thugs out after you. If noone saw you kill Lord Snotsley don't send out assassins. If you leave Gale dead for several days, he explodes nuking the hell out of the area. Now you have to deal with the fallout. Welcome to New Fauroen. It would also be far smarter if his quest wasn't behind a friend wall, this makes no sense. If he believes he needs artifacts to sustain himself or his power then he wouldn't give 2 shits if you were his friend or not. He'd be like 'BTW if I don't get this and that. I'll explode and your in the radius.' So you now realize it's not a hp (his problem) but a yp (your problem).
- Starting the main story with a few days time limit, then ignore it. It is not justified, it is just a "different" tadpole.
Fallout had 100 days time limit, which could be extended by 100 days with the water caravan, it made sense.

- Few days time limit is only enough for a side quest not for main stories.

- I think the time limit is okay, but if the game has no concept of time, that causes the inconsistency. Non of the areas are changing, all of them have the same light effect all of the areas are static, no clock.

- I think it would be okay if Gale would be a bomb, but a nuke... that is just not a fantasy story.. That is something else.


Honestly I don't care for time limits for most things, I was making the comment as an extreme solution. It made sense in Dead Rising and it could make sense for quests and can even improve them since it adds urgency. The main problem with Gale is that he's a walking fail state, if he dies and isn't revived he's suppose to, from his own description, go nuclear (scale of explosion is described as city sized) if they enforce that then you fail the game if you don't revive him, which can be annoying. I'd also add that his detonation looks like it would result in the land being soaking in some form of necrotic energy going off his death state. Another issue is that considering they were thinking of making your group permanent when you get to the tower that means you can have a walking bomb roaming about if he wasn't with you. That could make for an interesting quest in the later acts or it could be writing problem though we can't say anything on that. Consequences for doing something in a quest can add a great deal of value, however Gale is a fail state rather than a consequence, if Larian were to act on what we've been told so far.
Originally Posted by Tuco
Originally Posted by Riandor

Not that that should mean that we shouldn’t criticise or publish our thoughts, but your negativity here is just as unfounded as my optimism. So where does that leave us?!

I guess it leaves us with a bet I'm going to win with zero effort?

Also, I wish people could stop being unnecessarily over-defensive.
Not all criticism is an attempt to shit on the game and the studio working on it, and you guys aren't doing to the production ANY favor by blindly shielding it from critics.

The entire point on giving feedback in EA is pointing NOW the things we don't like or we find unconvincing so that they could (eventually) be fixed.

I could say I wish people would stop being so over critical and you would argue you’re not, nor am I defensive.

All I’m saying is you believe it won’t get sorted and will stay as is, I’m saying we can’t know, but yeah, it could well do.

We both agree it can’t stay as is, we’re only arguing here as to whether it will and how it should change. Suggestions have been given, up to Larian to respond. I think we both hope I’m more right than you! Lol.
Okay, I've figured it out.

The tadpole is supposed be changing us, it's not. The druids are supposed to finish their ritual any time now, they never finish it. The goblins are supposed to come attack, they never do (on their own, without your assistance). Gale is supposed to become a nuke, he doesn't.

And yet, we are resting again and again, presumably spending many hours doing so. Yet none of these events advance.

Why?

TIME IS NOT PASSING.

Yeah, the only logical conclusion is that time spent in the camp is not actually passing any time in the world. Maybe it IS an extradimensional space, a pocket plane, or the like. Maybe it's in a time distortion field of some kind. I mean, we get there through some weird teleporter runes, and it is clearly not IN the actual game world that we can explore.

So that's the canon I'm going with. When I rest, no time is actually passing. Makes everything else make sense.
Except you CAN miss events because time is passing when you rest. I even posted a list on this thread.
Maybe just a little bit of time is passing. Like 1/10th the normal time flow.
Originally Posted by clavis
Point 1 = The arguement that it's Early Access is a valid arguement. Since the game itself isn't complete then many aspects of the game are incomplete. Including anything they have planned for Gale, and the other Origin Characters, the plot, the story etc is incomplete. By the fact that it's incomplete means the part of nukeGale 3.0 hasn't been implemented, or is yet to be implemented.


The reason it's not a valid argument is because it's because the game is in EA and not yet complete that we should bring things up now before it is finished, during development. This is what EA is for. This is the point of feedback.

If Galenuke has been planned and just not yet implemented then there's no issue. If Galenuke hasn't been planned to ever be implemented then now is the time we're supposed to give feedback and say "Not having Galenuke is unfun, be consistent with your own narrative" so that we do what we can to make them add Galenuke before the game goes gold.
Originally Posted by Dexai
Originally Posted by clavis
Point 1 = The arguement that it's Early Access is a valid arguement. Since the game itself isn't complete then many aspects of the game are incomplete. Including anything they have planned for Gale, and the other Origin Characters, the plot, the story etc is incomplete. By the fact that it's incomplete means the part of nukeGale 3.0 hasn't been implemented, or is yet to be implemented.

The reason it's not a valid argument is because it's because the game is in EA and not yet complete that we should bring things up now before it is finished, during development. This is what EA is for. This is the point of feedback.

If Galenuke has been planned and just not yet implemented then there's no issue. If Galenuke hasn't been planned to ever be implemented then now is the time we're supposed to give feedback and say "Not having Galenuke is unfun, be consistent with your own narrative" so that we do what we can to make them add Galenuke before the game goes gold.
"A man after my own heart".
not sure how did I lost track of this thread and of this perfectly reasonable last post.

Still, this is not why I'm here now.
Two months later I crossed a guy on the Steam forums that implied that this has been fixed and that now letting Gale die and resting for few days without saving him leads to a game over.
I'm not sure if he put the theory to the test or if he just took the game's narration for granted.

I'm here to ask confirmation, since I haven't completed a new playthrough since Patch 3 released: did anyone test if they actually fix this?
Originally Posted by Tuco
Except you CAN miss events because time is passing when you rest. I even posted a list on this thread.

Or time stands still when you camp, yet you can still miss events because time does NOT stand still when you are out and about doing things outside of camp.

And of course, while you are intrepid adventurers ready to face the worst, you are scared of the dark and run to your timeless camp every day before dark, and don't come back out until morning.

Now we just need to figure out why being in the dark of the underdark doesn't scare you.
Originally Posted by Anfindel
Originally Posted by Tuco
Except you CAN miss events because time is passing when you rest. I even posted a list on this thread.

Or time stands still when you camp, yet you can still miss events because time does NOT stand still when you are out and about doing things outside of camp.

And of course, while you are intrepid adventurers ready to face the worst, you are scared of the dark and run to your timeless camp every day before dark, and don't come back out until morning.

Now we just need to figure out why being in the dark of the underdark doesn't scare you.

Was this from goosebumps or something?
Interesting thread. I'd tend to agree with the OP's points; narratively there are a lot of issues with the storyline in general at present.

My overriding concern is that it is symptomatic of having these exceptional and at times convoluted companion backstories which seem at times to overshadow the main protagonist's own story. I always felt the companions in BG2 had stories which for the most part were interesting enough and embellished the main storyline without taking over but some of these Origins companions behave like a bunch of social media influencers utterly desperate for attention and urgency.

What I loved about that miserable dwarf Korgan in BG2 was that he just upped sticks if your choices didn't align with his and that could happen fairly promptly and inconveniently, leaving you a party member down. Annoying as it was the first time he left my party, I respected that because it felt real and he made his intentions clear; he didn't hang around waiting to see if the main PC would follow his cause. There were consequences is what I am trying to say. All the inferred consequences in BG3 are yet to come to bear fruit, or at least the last few times I played.
Well the same thing happens with the whole Tadpol scenario.
There is no real ultimatum we must escape from.
Kinda downputting yet relieving at the same time.


I was never a great "D&D" player in that sense.

° Played Baldurs Gate 2 decades ago or something like this.
° Then I played first(?) Neverwinter Nights
and that's about it.

I'm an introverted videogamer so I do not go irl to D&D meetings.
My experience with the whole franchise is relatively fresh.


But there is one thing I always took serious after hearing from it.
° Beholders
and
° Mindflayers, especially being infected by them

They are supposed to be extreme Monsters. But the Beholders in the game feel kinda weak in comparisation to their Hype.
And the whole Mindflayer ordeal is, feeling pretty underwhelming too. Allthough that has to be the case since we are special wink ( of course ).
In which videogame are we not somehow "special"?
I know more in which the protagonist is, instead of being a completely mere normie.

But in no game I regretted it more than Baldurs Gate 3. :|
We are so special it feels like plotarmor to me.
Yeah its just my personal opinion of course.

And many new players would be really f°cked if they could just rest two times and it is GAME OVER. grin

The overall solution feels lacking still to me.
It is not the worst and it won't make Baldurs Gate 3 not fun for me of course. [Linked Image]
Just my ever briefly appearing struggle with my sense of immersion.


The finished product would not surprise me if we see it in 2023 at first, looking at the pace the patches progress.
And an alternate hardcore game mode;
In which we are just not protected by this mysterious power and have to find another way to survive, it would interest me greatly.

Our maincharacter group has it pretty easy at this point - I feel.

° Mystra's Ex
° A very previliged Warlock
° One Vampirespawn
° A Half-Elf Asurmar (most probably)
and
° a GIthyanki Armor with a breathing corpse attached to it

Feels like we got very good gear and general potential for overpower. ^_^
Originally Posted by JustAnotherBaldu
But the Beholders in the game feel kinda weak in comparisation to their Hype.
Where did you found Beholder?
I fighted just two Spectators. frown

Those are waker versions ... kinda like you wanted to fight elder drake, and fight dragon youngling instead. smile
Originally Posted by JustAnotherBaldu
° A Half-Elf Asurmar (most probably)
Huh?

Otherwise agreed, I hope the remaining companions aren't such "very special snowflakes" - being able to create interesting characters without BS such as this is what separates good writers from the mediocre and bad ones.
Originally Posted by Tuco
Two months later I crossed a guy on the Steam forums that implied that this has been fixed and that now letting Gale die and resting for few days without saving him leads to a game over.
I'm not sure if he put the theory to the test or if he just took the game's narration for granted.

I'm here to ask confirmation, since I haven't completed a new playthrough since Patch 3 released: did anyone test if they actually fix this?
Yup, the cinematic itself is not done yet ("Cinematic pending"), but you die after sleeping 3 times after Gale's death.
Gonna have to try it. Good job, Larian wink
Originally Posted by DiDiDi
Originally Posted by Tuco
Two months later I crossed a guy on the Steam forums that implied that this has been fixed and that now letting Gale die and resting for few days without saving him leads to a game over.
I'm not sure if he put the theory to the test or if he just took the game's narration for granted.

I'm here to ask confirmation, since I haven't completed a new playthrough since Patch 3 released: did anyone test if they actually fix this?
Yup, the cinematic itself is not done yet ("Cinematic pending"), but you die after sleeping 3 times after Gale's death.
Thats odd ...
My Githyani killed him in first encounter (never recruited him) then i played as usualy, and nothing happened. o_O
And yes, it was after patch 3 ... maybe its conditioned by him warning you? :-/
Yeah, maybe - I just killed him while he was in my party. The "quest" & warning dialogue started. Then I just long-rested 3 times.
Originally Posted by DiDiDi
Yeah, maybe - I just killed him while he was in my party. The "quest" & warning dialogue started. Then I just long-rested 3 times.
Well, in any case I'm surprisingly impressed they actually addressed this detail.
Honestly despise venting about how much I disliked the incongruence, I assumed it would remain forever one of these "videogame-y" things where they pretend everything is fine.

Just out of curiosity, outside of the "cinematic pending" how is the game over presented exactly? Some line of text, a pop-up telling you why it's game over or...?
Originally Posted by Tuco
Just out of curiosity, outside of the "cinematic pending" how is the game over presented exactly? Some line of text, a pop-up telling you why it's game over or...?

Like this:
Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD
Originally Posted by JustAnotherBaldu
But the Beholders in the game feel kinda weak in comparisation to their Hype.
Where did you found Beholder?
I fighted just two Spectators. frown

Those are waker versions ... kinda like you wanted to fight elder drake, and fight dragon youngling instead. smile

I know they look like Spectators buuuu~t the text says "Beholder" in my client. grin

€dit:
German client error maybe?
Posted By: OcO Re: Why games can't stick to their own premises? - 04/02/21 04:32 AM
Originally Posted by JustAnotherBaldu
Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD
Originally Posted by JustAnotherBaldu
But the Beholders in the game feel kinda weak in comparisation to their Hype.
Where did you found Beholder?
I fighted just two Spectators. frown

Those are waker versions ... kinda like you wanted to fight elder drake, and fight dragon youngling instead. smile

I know they look like Spectators buuuu~t the text says "Beholder" in my client. grin

€dit:
German client error maybe?

Aye that must be a translation thing. In the English version it is labeled as Spectator.
Also Beholders have 10 eye stocks with different abilities each + their "always on" central eye power.
After being teased with that Spectator, I really...really...really hope we get to face off against a real one.
© Larian Studios forums