|
|
|
veteran
|
veteran
Joined: Jun 2020
|
This is a little bit off the main topic, but it's a personal perspective on the back and forth that I've read here, mainly between Ragnarok and others, about experience and immersion in space. I want to stress, it's just an impression that I personally am struck with through reading this, and it's not intended to insult, hurt or offend. I don't want to cast a judgement on anyone - just explain a perspective that I find myself ending up at as I read the exchanges.
Rag, I feel as though you're mostly showing here that you just... don't really immerse in video game worlds. At least, it reads as though you simply don't; it reads as though you have an academic understanding of the concept and what it is supposedly about, but one that has been built up as a collection of known rules – as though you do not have any actual qualic understanding of the experience of it. That is the impression that I get, when I read your responses here; I'm not seeking to insult, belittle or offend – rather, I'm telling you how it looks, from my perspective and as a personal impression, reading your answers... and if it's accurate, then, well, that explains your stance here a great deal, and why you're saying what you are, the way that you are.
But, if it is true, you may also need to entertain the idea that you just do not appear to be equipped with the faculties to understand and grapple with this problem, and no amount of explaining to others why it's not a problem for you will have any impact on the discussion except, seemingly, to derail it and frustrate people, because you don't seem to be equipped to understand why it is a problem for them.
You say that you're aware of what it means to be immersed in the game world – because you played the game, but you don't seem to grasp that those two things aren't synonymous. You fall back on repeating that it looks to you as though people are just saying 'immersion' as an argument against things they don't like, whatever they are, even though several folks have taken pains to explain why certain specific things are problems for immersion in space. You ask how and why certain things break immersion, but when it's explained to you, you ignore that, or don't obtain it in some way, or rationalise it in an abstract and out-of-context manner, and then just revert to making the 'you just don't like it' accusation again... Yes; we don't like it – that's a given and automatic part of this entire conversation. We don't like these things because they create immersion dissonance that, with the frequency and magnitude it occurs, completely breaks all suggestion of proper immersion in the game world.
You're asking for an answer that you don't seem capable of comprehending when it's given, because it reads as though your experience is intrinsically different, it's also the only experience you know – and within that scope there simply is no problem. The result is that you legitimately and honestly (without malice) don't understand and can't comprehend what the problem is and why others are having it, because you tangibly do not have that element of the experience to begin with, and maybe never have.
It's as though... It's as though you asked a musician to give you an example of their music, and they do, but when they finish playing, you say to them “But I've seen that before – you made the strings vibrate in a whole bunch of pretty ways, and that's great, I loved it... but I don't get why you're saying that the person screaming at the top of their lungs over there is problematic for experiencing your music; I can see the strings vibrating perfectly fine even if they are, and I don't even have to watch them screaming like that in order to watch you make the strings vibrate! I love your music, it's great, and I watch it all the time; those other people just hate the person that's screaming.†- And to you that makes sense, because that's what music IS to you, and what you believe it to be for others as well.
That is how your responses seem, Rag – and again, this is just my reading of it, and the impression I get reading your responses – I mean no offence or insult in that; if it is the case, it's certainly not your fault or deliberate on your part.
We could take the badger example:
It doesn't matter whether I use the ability to burrow into the hanging cage (to, say, get the cool loot on the dead skeleton there): I don't – but I see that it is possible, and I cannot choose not to see that it is possible. I cannot choose to avoid seeing that this is possible before the game shows me that it is; after that I know that it is, and I'm reminded that it is every time I wish to use the ability. Beyond that, further still, enemies with access to the ability will most definitely abuse it against me and wave it in my face in impossible ways... and every time it comes up, that's another note of dissonance working against me simply existing in a believable space.
And it seems... unless I am mistaken (and I may be; I hope that I am), that you will not understand why this is a problem, and why this is bad for experiencing the world space as a real world with internal consistency. You cannot explain qualia to a person; you cannot convey a quale to a person who does not possess the faculty to experience it – you cannot even convey a quale to someone with the faculty to experience it if they have never done so themselves. Trying is the very definition of an exercise in frustration for both parties. This is, to a certain extent, what I feel like we may be seeing here.
The immersion you described for yourself was two layers of external knowledge and decision-making; it was two layers of facts and the decisions based upon them; it was not, in any way, a description of the experience of immersion in space... which, I say with apology (and the hope that I'm way off base and wrong about), your responses make it appear as though you do not, actually experience... no matter how many emoticons you fill your posts with. And again, I'm sorry if any of this comes across as hurtful; I don't intend for it to.
|
|
|
|
|
|
enthusiast
|
|
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2020
|
I'm a weak man, I can't resist keeping posting. Yes; we don't like it – that's a given and automatic part of this entire conversation. We don't like these things because they create immersion dissonance that, with the frequency and magnitude it occurs, completely breaks all suggestions of proper immersion in the game world. This. "God is dead and we killed him" - Friedrich Nietzsche. There are no more supremely right or correct takes on anything, just subjective experience; everything comes down to personal liking, it is, as Niara said, an automatic part of the conversation. Every single criticism in this entire forum, constructive or not, can be traced down to some people not "liking" a particular feature. That said, even if there's nothing sacred and univocal anymore, an RPG is a genre with a well defined and accepted set of rules and features that put roleplaying and immersion as their top priority, the same way an RTS puts strategy as its top priority and an FPS puts shooting phases as its top one. Ok then, what is immersion? To quote the Oxford University: A well-known psychological effect triggered by narrative texts is the reader’s (or listener’s) experience of being mentally drawn into the storyworld, a feeling which is often referred to as immersion. The intensity of the experience of being immersed is not only dependent on various cognitive and emotional propensities of the immersed subject but also determined by particular features of the narrative text. The more a text enables the reader to construct an embodied simulation of the described situation, the more intense the immersive experience will be. If we accept this definition, then it is sensible to say that every feature or mechanic that creates a dissonance between what we are experiencing and its internal coherency is going to be detrimental to the player immersion. Now, why do we accept some "immersion-breaking" features, like the turn-based combat that freezes time, and not weapons glued to our backs or the ability to teleport from anywhere? Because this is a game and not a movie, it must be interactable and fun to play. Still, some are necessary in order for a game to be interactable and fun to play, while others are not. What is the boundary between what is necessary and what is not? It is purely subjective. And yes, Larian is the master of the game they are producing and they are more than legitimate to make it their version of fun. But I, the customer, want a product that I enjoy, not a game the provider enjoys (if we enjoy the same thing all the better). This is why I, we, everyone are advocating for features they like but, even if everything is subjective, given the context some requests have more weight and are more reasonable than others. Let us assume that the game will have no tweakable options except for graphical ones such as the resolution of FPS cap. In this case, when deciding whether to insert or remove a particular feature the golden rule (here as when developing any product) is to put said feature on one scale plate, while on the other the core value of the product must be put. Is this immersion-breaking feature (and in a videogame, 90% of features are intrinsically immersion-breaking) bringing more benefit to the enjoyment of the game than the immersion that it is taking away from it? Again, the balance of the scale is subjective, but it is possible to have an honest and down to ground conversation on some features which are, in my opinion, pretty easily discerned. For example: - Are weapons glued to the backs of our characters bringing more fun and enjoyment than the visual annoyance they bring to some people? - Is the fact that a badger can borrow itself on the top of a cage bringing more enjoyment than the suspension of disbelief it causes? - Is the possibility to instant disappear from a camp full of hostile goblins without likewise explanations, even if there are no portals around, something fun or something detrimental to the core value of the game? I think that all the above features are bad, for the simple fact that the game claims to be a roleplaying game (core value = immersion). If it was advertised as a turn-based strategy game I would have no problem with it. Will taking away these features bring more harm than good? Again, it's subjective but no, I don't think so. I honestly think the most harm would be to take away a little chuckle from people who don't particularly care about immersion, versus the more enjoyable experience for all the others, which I think are the majority since they are buying an RPG. Again, under the assumption that no options except for graphical ones are going to be available. -------------------------- We could take the badger example:
It doesn't matter whether I use the ability to burrow into the hanging cage (to, say, get the cool loot on the dead skeleton there): I don't – but I see that it is possible, and I cannot choose not to see that it is possible. I cannot choose to avoid seeing that this is possible before the game shows me that it is; after that I know that it is, and I'm reminded that it is every time I wish to use the ability. Which was exactly the same sentiment I have with unlimited fast travel: The current iteration of fast travelling in this game is exactly like that scooter. I can refuse to use it but it's still there, parked next to a horse. It's a bit difficult to stay immersed in this scenario. ------------------------- To end on some positive notes: 1) Larian's people, on the off chance that you are reading, I love your game and what you are doing. In this forum, you are going to read 90% negative things just because no one wants to change the dozens of them that are already super good. People, me included, are arguing only because they want the game to be the best version of what it can be. 2) People in this thread, let's not antagonise and stigmatise anyone, even if we profoundly disagree with one another.
|
|
|
|
|
|
addict
|
|
addict
Joined: Oct 2020
|
I suggest people play Planescape : Torment for a crash course on <Immersion>  Not to mention good writing. Whatsmore the Enhanced Edition version of the game didn't butcher it too bad...very playable. Though I still prefer the classic (picture). Better smoother colors. ![[Linked Image from i.ibb.co]](https://i.ibb.co/tBSyskb/Screen-Shot-2022-05-13-at-22-13-34.png)
Last edited by mr_planescapist; 13/05/22 02:20 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Oct 2020
|
it reads as though you have an academic understanding of the concept and what it is supposedly about, but one that has been built up as a collection of known rules – as though you do not have any actual qualic understanding of the experience of it. Actualy i believe that i understad it ... it still feels a little alien (is that corect word? Anyway i believe the feeling is mutual.) since my approach to same is quite different, and i must admit that i dont agree with almost anything you said. But my goal was not to accept your ways, but to understand them ... and i believe i gathered and processed enough data to do now. (Still can be wrong tho.) Its the same as my way to build a sentence ... Some may sound weird in english, and sometimes i can focus on wrong parts and get wrong impression of soemthing ... but that is just extended effect of that my brain will allways work in my language, no matter what i try to translate to. You fall back on repeating that it looks to you as though people are just saying 'immersion' as an argument against things they don't like, whatever they are Speaking about "out-of-context manner" ... I would like to remind you that i said that people use "immersion" as an argument against things they just simply "dont like" ... in topic about sheating weapons on their back. Wich is something that in my quite honest opinion is matter of PURE aestetic prefferences, especialy if we can agree (and some of us did) on that those weapons *dont* "float behind our back", it is just the way this game shows it, wich isnt perfect for immersion, true, but also its not quite important if the topic is hip or back ... also especialy (as i showed in previous post with ingame screenshot) when we concider size of weapons in this game, wich would as people used to use in that topic "logicaly" make sheating on hip just as impossible as on back. So, to put it simply: There is no "whatever they are". This was said in hip/back sheating topic ... and it belongs there and only there. We could take the badger example:
It doesn't matter whether I use the ability to burrow into the hanging cage (to, say, get the cool loot on the dead skeleton there): I don't – but I see that it is possible, and I cannot choose not to see that it is possible. I cannot choose to avoid seeing that this is possible before the game shows me that it is; after that I know that it is, and I'm reminded that it is every time I wish to use the ability. I belive this is the core difference between our approach to our immersion ... I understand that you as a player cannot "unsee" the fact that game allows you to burrow into the cage. What i was trying to say, when we were talking about this particular example ... is that i would most likely never even get to this situation, since i usualy see exactly the spot where i want to burrow when i choose that i will burrow, since im immersed so i try to think as that character ... and the only way i can think of you as a player, can find out that you can actualy burrow into that hanging cage ... is that you choose to burrow and for some reason move your cursor into that cage, or simply start moving it over the screen to find out on wich places you can burrow. And for me, THAT is the point, when you broke your immersion ... not when you find out that the engine allows you this, but when you were searching where you can burrow ... since you no longer work with your character information, you are checking all possibilities that engine gives you ... and that is simply not immersive for me. We may never agree on this, you have your ways to play, i have mine ... and i believe that both is fine.  Best i can hope for is that we understand each other. Beyond that, further still, enemies with access to the ability will most definitely abuse it against me and wave it in my face in impossible ways... and every time it comes up, that's another note of dissonance working against me simply existing in a believable space. This is good argument! Examples we were using in this topic dont quite apply, i would dare to say (sheating weaspons on back can quite be abused in any way i would imagine ... and i dont believe that any engine would concider teleporting to cage as good tactical choice, since you either dont have line of sight to anyone bcs cage is in your way, or everyone have clear line of sight on you without any chance to run  ). But still, its a good argument for immersion problems in general. I totally understand that argument "just dont do it" cant be applied for situations where even if you choose not to do something, NPCs wont. :-/
I still dont understand why cant we change Race for our hirelings.  Lets us play Githyanki as racist as they trully are!
|
|
|
|
|
|
addict
|
|
addict
Joined: Nov 2020
|
I was going to stay out of this whole discussion because it honestly exhausts me, but I'd like you have have an actual situation that happened to me about a week ago: I was playing a turn based crpg and got into a fight with a bunch of creepy crawly cave bugs. I started the fight on the ground, at least two of the bugs were above me on some scaffolding. Before I did anything (their turns were before mine), the two bugs on the scaffold burrowed into the scaffold, I could literally see their models handing in thin air, vanished, then unburrowed out of the ground inside my group. And I believe my next words were "that's fucking bullshit". Lets have another example, this one from many years ago: I'm walking around in an rpg, having a lovely walk. I don't remember where I was going, just that I chose to do so on foot so I could admire the landscape. Clouds come over and it starts to rain, I spy a nearby structure that might offer me shelter from the rain so I run and go stand under it. About a second later I notice that the rain is coming right through the structure, because weather can't actually be blocked by structures in external cells, it was a limitation of the game engine at the time, and this realisation leaves me feeling intensely disappointed. I did not find any joy in the following run to my destination. I don't know why people seem to be assuming that the players break their own immersion in the game world. That's never been my experience, it's always been the other way around, where I am playing the game normally, and then the game or AI does something bullshit, because the game works by mechanical code, and does not care about player immersion. That's been my experience in BG3 too. To get back on track Floaty weapons isn't actually something that is overly breaking for me, perhaps it's that I've spent too long playing crpgs where floaty weapons are a commonly used shortcut and it's become normalised in my mind, but I understand why it's breaking for others. It would be nice if our armour incorporated extra straps or hooks to at least try and make it look like our aren't just velcroed on. I'm also torn on the issue of backpacks, I've played older rpgs that managed to do them, but I also feel like they would cause clipping issues in BG3 and ultimately make things worse. Short rests are a little bland right now, that's just a fact. It needs something other than people just standing there like a pack of idiots. But it's important to note that a short rest only takes an hour to complete, at least mechanically, and is literally just having a break to sit or snack or do something else that doesn't require exerting yourself. As for the tadpole urgency issue, I'm not entirely sure it's actually urgent at all. We've been told it's an urgent matter, but it's obvious that people are working on information that is either bad or not relevant to us specifically. Some of these issues are things that are present in tabletop as well, and there's no real explanation for them there either (eg, why players make death saves but a bandit does not), so that's not on Larian to solve that problem. Lastly: Characters that aren't present can approve or disapprove of actions. How does that work? !!!! This shit makes me so unreasonably angry every time it pops up, and I really do wish Larian would stop it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Aug 2020
|
To your issue about tadpole urgency, Piff, youre right that it's ultimately not AS urgent as it's initially presented. The problem I've found is that the way they present that revelation that it's not so urgent. It's given through little bits of context clues scattered throughout act one. Hints and things that you can find out. And the issue with this in my opinion is that given how the urgency was built up at the beginning, the game needs to give some kind of definitive moment of catharsis where we can actually feel the tension come to an end, as opposed to scattered hints that it's possible to not internalize, or to miss entirely.
With the fact that characters not present at an event can approve or disapprove, I think that's just a matter of abstracting the fact that characters woul hear about stuff when the group meets up in camp again. Otherwise you get a situation where you can do a bunch of evil things and still have good characters be totally okay with you just because they weren't there. It's not perfect, but I don't know what would actually be a better approach.
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Sep 2020
|
To your issue about tadpole urgency, Piff, youre right that it's ultimately not AS urgent as it's initially presented. The problem I've found is that the way they present that revelation that it's not so urgent. It's given through little bits of context clues scattered throughout act one. Hints and things that you can find out. And the issue with this in my opinion is that given how the urgency was built up at the beginning, the game needs to give some kind of definitive moment of catharsis where we can actually feel the tension come to an end, as opposed to scattered hints that it's possible to not internalize, or to miss entirely. There is a singular moment of catharsis - the early party long rest cutscene, where everyone feels sick and Lae'zel wants to kill us because she thinks we're turning. But then we wake up feeling perfectly fine, conclusive evidence that our tadpole is different from normal ceremorphosis. However, it is (was? Not sure if fixed in later patches...) incredibly easy to entirely miss this cutscene if you don't rest early enough. If you, reasonably, think that you're on a time limit and push as far as you can, other cutscene triggers can overwrite this one. Basically, Larian needs to adjust things so that we're forced to rest and see this cutscene. I suggest exhaustion; after finding Lae'zel, our party immediately gains a level of exhaustion (prompt cutscene where party members say they need to rest). If we continue to adventure, in another minute we get another level of exhaustion. And then another. And then another. At 4 or 5 levels of exhaustion we get more party dialogue saying they need to rest, and disapproval by most (approval by Lae'zel) if we continue on. So player's aren't completely forced to rest, but they're heavily encouraged. As for party approval/disapproval, it's reasonable to me that the party members talk to each other in camp. But I think non-present party members should only approve/disapprove of the BIG decisions. Not small dialogue choices. Things that it's reasonable for them to hear about.
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Oct 2020
|
There is a singular moment of catharsis There is more discusions about this ... In first (or second not sure) long rest Gale, and Lae'zel both tells you that you should be turning by now, so your case is certainly "unusual".
I still dont understand why cant we change Race for our hirelings. Lets us play Githyanki as racist as they trully are!
|
|
|
|
|
|
addict
|
|
OP
addict
Joined: Aug 2014
|
With the fact that characters not present at an event can approve or disapprove, I think that's just a matter of abstracting the fact that characters woul hear about stuff when the group meets up in camp again. Otherwise you get a situation where you can do a bunch of evil things and still have good characters be totally okay with you just because they weren't there. It's not perfect, but I don't know what would actually be a better approach. It is not something that needs abstracting, I think. Back at the camp there is time for talking things through. It is a perfectly good opportunity for characters to make their opinions on things they heard about known. Such moments can also be used to expand on the reasons for approval/disapproval. Or your companions not being aware of your evil deeds could also be OK. Keeping your evil ways secret will make them extra evil! Isn´t it just like real life?
|
|
|
|
|
|
member
|
|
member
Joined: Jul 2021
|
Since most companions aren't really the best of friends, why would they run around gossiping to eachother about something i said or did, and even if they did tell eachother, the offended companion should confront me and ask if it's true, or ask why i did what i did, maybe i would get a speech check to convince them it was the right decision during those circumstances or something like that, just getting an automatic disapproval from someone through hearsay isn't really fair.
|
|
|
|
|
|
addict
|
|
OP
addict
Joined: Aug 2014
|
Since most companions aren't really the best of friends, why would they run around gossiping to eachother about something i said or did, From an immersion point of view: some adventurers go out exploring while the rest stay at the camp, doing nothing. After some time, the explorers return to camp, covered in blood and mud, carrying large amounts of cheese. Wouldn´t the people who stayed at camp want to hear what happened? and even if they did tell eachother, the offended companion should confront me and ask if it's true, or ask why i did what i did, maybe i would get a speech check to convince them it was the right decision during those circumstances or something like that, just getting an automatic disapproval from someone through hearsay isn't really fair. Yes, that would make more sense and be more interesting.
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Feb 2020
|
Since most companions aren't really the best of friends, why would they run around gossiping to eachother about something i said or did, From an immersion point of view: some adventurers go out exploring while the rest stay at the camp, doing nothing. After some time, the explorers return to camp, covered in blood and mud, carrying large amounts of cheese. Wouldn´t the people who stayed at camp want to hear what happened? This is already a statement that breaks the immersion in itself... Why would someone who has clear objectives to achieve quickly stay in the camp and do nothing while waiting to hear from others what they have seen?
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Aug 2020
|
To your issue about tadpole urgency, Piff, youre right that it's ultimately not AS urgent as it's initially presented. The problem I've found is that the way they present that revelation that it's not so urgent. It's given through little bits of context clues scattered throughout act one. Hints and things that you can find out. And the issue with this in my opinion is that given how the urgency was built up at the beginning, the game needs to give some kind of definitive moment of catharsis where we can actually feel the tension come to an end, as opposed to scattered hints that it's possible to not internalize, or to miss entirely. There is a singular moment of catharsis - the early party long rest cutscene, where everyone feels sick and Lae'zel wants to kill us because she thinks we're turning. But then we wake up feeling perfectly fine, conclusive evidence that our tadpole is different from normal ceremorphosis. However, it is (was? Not sure if fixed in later patches...) incredibly easy to entirely miss this cutscene if you don't rest early enough. If you, reasonably, think that you're on a time limit and push as far as you can, other cutscene triggers can overwrite this one. Basically, Larian needs to adjust things so that we're forced to rest and see this cutscene. I suggest exhaustion; after finding Lae'zel, our party immediately gains a level of exhaustion (prompt cutscene where party members say they need to rest). If we continue to adventure, in another minute we get another level of exhaustion. And then another. And then another. At 4 or 5 levels of exhaustion we get more party dialogue saying they need to rest, and disapproval by most (approval by Lae'zel) if we continue on. So player's aren't completely forced to rest, but they're heavily encouraged. See, I don't think that's truly conclusive though. All it does is confirm that things are strange. It's another mystery, one that potentially can happen early enough in the game that you lack any information to really extrapolate from it. Sure we can guess that what we felt was ceremorphosis being interrupted, but I don't think you get the effect if there's still uncertainty floating around. Also, just because it's different than normal doesn't mean anything firmly. It's all just adding a layer of mystery and uncertainty. My problem is that they seem to be trying to have it both ways and failing. Either keep up the sense of tension and uncertainty and design the game with that in mind, or firmly and definitively relieve the tension. Based on what they seem to want to be doing, Larian should find a way to firmly establish "we don't need to worry about changing anytime soon, we can take our time" and then postioning it so that the mystery of why is truly front and centre. At the end of the camp scene you talk about, everyone assumes that it was just them having had a bad meal, no one knows what happened and the idea that it had to do with ceremorphosis isn't even brought up again. We as the audience can guess, and that's great for keeping us tense and wondering what's going on. But that's not catharsis. That's not a big, emotional release. That's building up the tension. Oh, we thought the big moment was here but instead it was nothing. Now we know less than we thought we did. The tension of this plotline doesn't rise to a crescendo. It rises and then fizzles out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Oct 2020
|
This is already a statement that breaks the immersion in itself... Why would someone who has clear objectives to achieve quickly stay in the camp and do nothing while waiting to hear from others what they have seen? Thats exactly the reason party limist should never ever, ever be mentioned in roleplay ... and should have ben kept as pure mechanical limitation. There will never be reason good enough for others to stay in camp. :-/
Last edited by RagnarokCzD; 15/05/22 08:24 PM.
I still dont understand why cant we change Race for our hirelings. Lets us play Githyanki as racist as they trully are!
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Feb 2020
|
This is already a statement that breaks the immersion in itself... Why would someone who has clear objectives to achieve quickly stay in the camp and do nothing while waiting to hear from others what they have seen? Thats exactly the reason party limist should never ever, ever be mentioned in roleplay ... and should have ben kept as pure mechanical limitation. There will never be reason good enough for others to stay in camp. :-/ Well, there are in other games. Or at least it "make sense" that they stay where they are if not with the player. But not in BG3, I agree.
Last edited by Maximuuus; 15/05/22 09:13 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Sep 2020
|
See, I don't think that's truly conclusive though. All it does is confirm that things are strange. It's another mystery, one that potentially can happen early enough in the game that you lack any information to really extrapolate from it. Sure we can guess that what we felt was ceremorphosis being interrupted, but I don't think you get the effect if there's still uncertainty floating around. Also, just because it's different than normal doesn't mean anything firmly. It's all just adding a layer of mystery and uncertainty. My problem is that they seem to be trying to have it both ways and failing. Either keep up the sense of tension and uncertainty and design the game with that in mind, or firmly and definitively relieve the tension. Based on what they seem to want to be doing, Larian should find a way to firmly establish "we don't need to worry about changing anytime soon, we can take our time" and then postioning it so that the mystery of why is truly front and centre.
At the end of the camp scene you talk about, everyone assumes that it was just them having had a bad meal, no one knows what happened and the idea that it had to do with ceremorphosis isn't even brought up again. We as the audience can guess, and that's great for keeping us tense and wondering what's going on. But that's not catharsis. That's not a big, emotional release. That's building up the tension. Oh, we thought the big moment was here but instead it was nothing. Now we know less than we thought we did. The tension of this plotline doesn't rise to a crescendo. It rises and then fizzles out. That's all fair. It's conclusive evidence that our tadpoles aren't proceeding us down the "normal" ceremorphosis path, but that's about it. We could still be transforming but more slowly, or still at risk of suddenly transforming. And I agree that our characters should be more worried about the tadpole. At least until more conclusive evidence is presented that we're all safe from transforming permanently.
|
|
|
|
|
|
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Sep 2020
|
Floaty weapons isn't actually something that is overly breaking for me, perhaps it's that I've spent too long playing crpgs where floaty weapons are a commonly used shortcut and it's become normalised in my mind, but I understand why it's breaking for others. It would be nice if our armour incorporated extra straps or hooks to at least try and make it look like our aren't just velcroed on. I'm also torn on the issue of backpacks, I've played older rpgs that managed to do them, but I also feel like they would cause clipping issues in BG3 and ultimately make things worse. It is pretty normal for me too, almost every game I play that shows weapons, even the most immersive and realistic one, has floaty weapons on the back. Backpacks in that game however, they have done very well with barely any clipping, even showing if they are heavy with stuff or mostly empty. I think in this game, an option for sheathing on the back or the hip would be nice for those who want it but there will probably be clipping no matter where things are located. Backpacks if added should come with an option to show or hide. With the fact that characters not present at an event can approve or disapprove, I think that's just a matter of abstracting the fact that characters woul hear about stuff when the group meets up in camp again. Otherwise you get a situation where you can do a bunch of evil things and still have good characters be totally okay with you just because they weren't there. It's not perfect, but I don't know what would actually be a better approach. If someone was to go and do things another would have issues with, the only reason to tell them is to get the negative reaction. Otherwise most people would keep it to themselves. I think the tadpole, while a rather silly reason for everyone to know everything, is probably the best excuse for what they currently have going on. It also explains how everyone knows what choices you make with the creepy dream person. Not sure if it happens in multiplayer as well like that, if one person goes for the tadpole powers and the rest do not, does everyone know? That's all fair. It's conclusive evidence that our tadpoles aren't proceeding us down the "normal" ceremorphosis path, but that's about it. We could still be transforming but more slowly, or still at risk of suddenly transforming.
And I agree that our characters should be more worried about the tadpole. At least until more conclusive evidence is presented that we're all safe from transforming permanently. This.
|
|
|
|
|
|
addict
|
|
addict
Joined: Aug 2021
|
the early party long rest cutscene, where everyone feels sick and Lae'zel wants to kill us because she thinks we're turning. But then we wake up feeling perfectly fine, conclusive evidence that our tadpole is different from normal ceremorphosis. For what it's worth, that cutscene only triggers if the player used tadpole powers. And I'm fairly sure that the first tadpole-power opportunity (when the game encourages the player to try using it for tutorial purposes) doesn't count. So players wary of the tadpole will miss that important bit of knowledge. Not to mention, players who rest as little as seems prudent given the circumstances will miss other cutscenes, such as Gale saying the ceremorphosis timeline is off. The game never reassures players who play scared (few long rests, no tadpole usage) yet keeps reinforcing the tadpole's danger. In this way, BG3 punishes player immersion by withholding key information from those who choose to take the threat seriously.
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Oct 2020
|
Not sure if it happens in multiplayer as well like that, if one person goes for the tadpole powers and the rest do not, does everyone know? Most likely ... When you go with more custom characters, all get their tadpole dream and power, no matter if they ever used it or not. You can also cheeze your way out of this problem, if you wish to be a little asshole ... and use your companions, they use the tadpole to dominate some goblin, you get your super tadpole power, and then you can be pissed off at them, that they were not careful enough. I especialy enjoy tormenting Shadowheart like this. :3
I still dont understand why cant we change Race for our hirelings. Lets us play Githyanki as racist as they trully are!
|
|
|
|
|
|
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Sep 2020
|
When you go with more custom characters, all get their tadpole dream and power, no matter if they ever used it or not. You can also cheeze your way out of this problem, if you wish to be a little asshole ... and use your companions, they use the tadpole to dominate some goblin, you get your super tadpole power, and then you can be pissed off at them, that they were not careful enough. I especialy enjoy tormenting Shadowheart like this. :3 I have definitely seen it with the full custom party but was wondering if it made a difference with multiple actual players. Personally I think it should be allowed for someone to get tadpole powers and the rest to not know, hence why I think they are using the bloody thing as an excuse for everyone knowing everything. Would make no sense otherwise for someone to blab to the rest of the party that they gave in.
|
|
|
|
|
