Larian Banner
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 15 of 15 1 2 13 14 15
Joined: Jul 2014
Location: Italy
veteran
Online Content
veteran
Joined: Jul 2014
Location: Italy
Originally Posted by Alexandrite
I still don't quite understand what the issue is, here.
And before anyone throws smelly boots and rotten eggs at me and calls me a "Larian fangirl", I'm not - this is the first of their games I've ever played... I just happen to love this particular game the way it is shaping up, is all. I've never played the original BG games (well, BG1 a little, and this year not 20 years ago) and I've never played the Divinity series.

Originally Posted by Niara
That is what D:OS2 ended up being like... and this game design is going exactly the same way, despite promises from Larian to the contrary.

I didn't know that. But in THIS game, it's reversed, and we are starting off being encouraged to play our own player-created character. The other Origin characters aren't playable yet. Where is the issue?

You CAN play your own custom character with or without the NPC companions.
You CAN choose to play as one of the origin characters. Probably more characters will be coming.
You CAN choose to play either custom characters or Origin pre-made characters with friends, or for example 2 custom characters and 2 pre-made characters, etc.
You can do literally whatever you want. I don't understand how having all these options is a problem?
I'd try to explain it again but I don't see the point when you are purposefully ignoring any post that explains the issue (in fact, it's so blatant I'm suspecting I may LITERALLY be in your ignore list and you won't address this reply either) and then following with another "I don't see the problem".


You seem to think that "more options are always great" as if for some form of magic they came as a net bonus, with no compromises, when reality is very different.
I don't care if I can just "ignore Origins and play a custom character", because that doesn't address the issue. I care for everything the game had to give up to even allow these Origin characters to exist.

Let's take DOS 2 as an example: I would have gladly welcomed a game where companions interacted WAY more with each other (rather than ignoring their mutual existence and talking just to the Main Character) over one that blew most of its extra budget and manpower into writing/voicing these same few companions from multiple perspectives (read: playable or not).

Last edited by Tuco; 18/05/21 11:01 AM.

Party control in Baldur's Gate 3 is a complete mess that begs to be addressed. SAY NO TO THE TOILET CHAIN
Joined: Nov 2020
E
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
E
Joined: Nov 2020
Originally Posted by Alexandrite
I still don't quite understand what the issue is, here.

...

I didn't know that. But in THIS game, it's reversed, and we are starting off being encouraged to play our own player-created character. The other Origin characters aren't playable yet. Where is the issue?

You CAN play your own custom character with or without the NPC companions.
You CAN choose to play as one of the origin characters. Probably more characters will be coming.
You CAN choose to play either custom characters or Origin pre-made characters with friends, or for example 2 custom characters and 2 pre-made characters, etc.
You can do literally whatever you want. I don't understand how having all these options is a problem?

I think the issue is simply that some people have a different opinion to you and have valid concerns over the implementation of the custom character experience? Every previous iteration of BG or other games such as IWD, NWN, were always about playing a custom character so nothing has really been reversed at all. Origins companions in this case are an import from DOS; in an ideal world I personally feel BG3 should have nothing to do with DOS at all, other than being made by the developer of DOS and being a party based CRPG.

If you look at the advertising for the game, it's all about the Origins companions so in a sense it comes across as a game like The Witcher or Mass Effect. I always felt D&D CRPGS were about roleplaying your own creation not taking control of someone else's. Purely from ignorance, I cannot think of a single game that successfully managed to integrate both an Origins system and a custom character one...I'm more than happy to be corrected on this because, as I said, I am saying this from my own relatively limited experience of playing similar games to BG.

Joined: Apr 2021
S
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
S
Joined: Apr 2021
I like the origin system, for what it's worth (not much, I know...). I'll definitely be doing custom character playthroughs (probably multiple) but I also intend to play every origin character at some point. I think our custom characters will shape up to have more identity and impact on the story in time. It's already hinted at in the dream sequences and with the choices you make in regards to Dream Daisy. The first part of the game is really just setting the tone and introducing the various characters. The story is just picking up. It's difficult to see because we have barely 1/3 of the story so far, but I do have faith that Larian is working to provide the best experience that they can. The custom characters haven't had much story time for players to flesh them out, and I doubt people want for the custom characters to be handed a fleshed out story right away? The origin characters are able to have complex stories at this point because they don't require the players to design them through gameplay interaction. Basically, we don't have the full story yet.

I agree with Alexandrite, Blackheifer, and Evilvik on this. I'm looking forward to playing the origin characters. Is it really a waste of resources for the game if there are people that want to and will engage with and enjoy the content? Players who don't want to play that way aren't required to engage with them at all. Time will tell if they end up missing out on a majority of the story. I'm hopeful that Larian has thought about and will address this, as they intend for multiplayer (and thus parties without origin characters) to be a big part of the experience. I disagree that the world and characters are bland and flat. I don't have as many hours in the game as some people here, but I've had a great time! I also like a good story, and have really enjoyed what I've seen of the companions' stories so far. I understand that not everything is perfect, but it's also a work in progress. And it is getting better. I've seen that from videos on Youtube of early gameplay and my own playthroughs this latest patch.

Edit: Before people come for me! I do want to say that I recognize the issue people are raising about this being a DnD game, where character customization is one of the foundational aspects of the game. Sometimes I do wonder if having so many origin characters is too ambitious. I'm just personally enjoying these aspects and generally have a positive outlook on it. I'm not trying to dismiss anyone's criticisms (I think many of the concerns have validity even if I disagree with some of them) but I've been following this thread for a while and want to provide a different perspective.

Last edited by Sabra; 18/05/21 11:58 AM.
Joined: Apr 2021
Location: Australia
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Apr 2021
Location: Australia
Originally Posted by Tuco
I'd try to explain it again but I don't see the point when you are purposefully ignoring any post that explains the issue (in fact, it's so blatant I'm suspecting I may LITERALLY be in your ignore list and you won't address this reply either) and then following with another "I don't see the problem".

Whoa, whoa, whoa. First of all, no you're not on my ignore list. I simply disagree, that's all.


Originally Posted by Tuco
You seem to think that "more options are always great" as if for some form of magic they came as a net bonus, with no compromises, when reality is very different.
I don't care if I can just "ignore Origins and play a custom character", because that doesn't address the issue. I care for everything the game had to give up to even allow these Origin characters to exist.

I don't think the game has had to give anything up? We haven't even seen the whole game yet, the whole story. I just happen to be enjoying the story and game as it is now, without a wish to re-write it from the ground up. Look, all of us appear to just be wasting time snapping at each other while waiting for Larian to release their long-awaited community update.


Originally Posted by Tuco
Let's take DOS 2 as an example: I would have gladly welcomed a game where companions interacted WAY more with each other (rather than ignoring their mutual existence and talking just to the Main Character) over one that blew most of its extra budget and manpower into writing/voicing these same few companions from multiple perspectives (read: playable or not).

If you're speaking specifically to me, I have mentioned several times I've never played the Divinity series. The comparison is lost on me I'm afraid.

Joined: Oct 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2020
Aaaand yet again Pathfinder: Path of the righteous does one more thing right....No frigging <<origins>> , just LOTS of detailed and interesting companions that interacts with your created character ...which by the way has TONS of classes and sub-classes to choose from. Things are trucking along at a good pace, recommend checking the latest PotR built. Game is out this summer.
Meanwhile Larian...WTF?! Probably still recording Origins cinematics. Snails pace in gameplay improvements.

Last edited by mr_planescapist; 18/05/21 12:39 PM.
Joined: May 2019
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: May 2019
Originally Posted by Nyloth
Originally Posted by kanisatha
I'm not talking about the companions or the party. I would never play with custom companions when NPC companions are available. I'm talking about my PC. My custom PC in my non-custom party, where my custom PC is going to feel completely pointless and irrelevant compared with my party companions.

But also, on a secondary related note, I profoundly disagree that we currently have a varied cast of well written companions. There is no variation at all in good versus evil. As someone who would want only a strictly "good" aligned party, I have no choices at all (No, Wyll and Gale are not good-aligned; at best they're neutral). And worse, all the current crop of companions are utterly distasteful and annoying, and I would not care to go adventuring with them as my companions. I would want a full party of all good-aligned companions who are also"nice and friendly and a pleasure to hang out with. But I am also not going to be willing to accept empty-suit custom companions. So then there is no way (at least at present) for me to play the game.

Yes, maybe because all our companions are now evil or neutral? Larian has already been told there are no good companions in EA, so yes Wyll and Gale are not good. They are neutral. Wait when Larian add good companions. If you specifically don't like evil characters, it doesn't mean that they are poorly written or not interesting. I'm happy there are no good characters in my party, I'm tired of them, in every game you have good characters and a maximum neutral ones. But the evil? Almost never. We also can't fully judge how well/bad they are written, because we don't know anything about them at all, except for their partial worldview.

So yes, I think we have most interesting companions. Because you will hardly find many games with evil or selfish companions, which will also be equally with the good ones. This is rare.
Yes, supposedly we will be getting good-aligned companions later on. But the discussion was about the current companions being great and so I am disagreeing with that. I am of course willing to wait and see on the future companions, though given that I am yet to find a single Larian created NPC that I liked I highly doubt I will see anything I like from those additional companions.

As for the companions being well written, yes there is a subjective element to it, but it is also objective. And these companions are not well written. They are largely edgelord cliches.

Joined: Oct 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Tuco
Originally Posted by Alexandrite
I still don't quite understand what the issue is, here.
And before anyone throws smelly boots and rotten eggs at me and calls me a "Larian fangirl", I'm not - this is the first of their games I've ever played... I just happen to love this particular game the way it is shaping up, is all. I've never played the original BG games (well, BG1 a little, and this year not 20 years ago) and I've never played the Divinity series.

Originally Posted by Niara
That is what D:OS2 ended up being like... and this game design is going exactly the same way, despite promises from Larian to the contrary.

I didn't know that. But in THIS game, it's reversed, and we are starting off being encouraged to play our own player-created character. The other Origin characters aren't playable yet. Where is the issue?

You CAN play your own custom character with or without the NPC companions.
You CAN choose to play as one of the origin characters. Probably more characters will be coming.
You CAN choose to play either custom characters or Origin pre-made characters with friends, or for example 2 custom characters and 2 pre-made characters, etc.
You can do literally whatever you want. I don't understand how having all these options is a problem?
I'd try to explain it again but I don't see the point when you are purposefully ignoring any post that explains the issue (in fact, it's so blatant I'm suspecting I may LITERALLY be in your ignore list and you won't address this reply either) and then following with another "I don't see the problem".


You seem to think that "more options are always great" as if for some form of magic they came as a net bonus, with no compromises, when reality is very different.
I don't care if I can just "ignore Origins and play a custom character", because that doesn't address the issue. I care for everything the game had to give up to even allow these Origin characters to exist.

Let's take DOS 2 as an example: I would have gladly welcomed a game where companions interacted WAY more with each other (rather than ignoring their mutual existence and talking just to the Main Character) over one that blew most of its extra budget and manpower into writing/voicing these same few companions from multiple perspectives (read: playable or not).

...and yet, the companions do interact with each other, here for sure. It's been a while since I played DOS2, so I don't recall, one way or the other. If it's "but they're limited", are you looking to get their whole story laid out in the first act? That doesn't seem to make a lot of sense. I have already talked on the "what they gave up to make the Origin characters voiced" point. They didn't give up anything that isn't "given up" in any other game with voiced companions. If it's giving up on the PC being voiced, I doubt that it's got a lot to do with voiced NPCs. After all, the PC in BG 1 and 2 was a silent protagonist, barring some selection blurbs. Ironically, Hawke being voiced in DA 2 was one of the things that lit the old BSN forums on fire, because "their tone doesn't fit what I wanted it to be". So that's a lose/lose proposition.

If they spend too much time defining Tav, then we run into the issue of all the possible variations, even just in EA, let alone what may be possible on release. Parallel to that issue will be those that expect to be able to define that particular themselves, instead of "playing Larian's Character". I've watched this debate for decades. I've seen every iteration of the argument, and while I was initially all about silent protagonists, I've come to the realization that both have their merits, and neither is going to be perfect. Even with a silent protagonist, I've found that dialog options that I may have wanted to take weren't available. For a voiced protagonist, where was the choice to tell TIM to take a long walk off a short pier after the first mission in ME 2? Where was the option to not work for Cerebus at all? Pitfalls abound, because no matter how well a game is received, and we'd be hard pressed to claim that ME 2 wasn't a good game, and that it wasn't well received, since most people seem to believe it was the best game in the series, it's going to have things missing that players wanted, and things included that they didn't.

But I digress. The budget to make the comps voiced doesn't necessarily affect whether or not the main/custom character gets voice lines, or a lot of exposition about who they are/were before the story events. In the vast majority of these games, where the character isn't totally defined, such as the Witcher series, the character is shaped by the player's choices, from what's available, voiced or otherwise. Some of a PC's backstory doesn't even become apparent until later in the game, from the player's perspective, such as being a Bhaalspawn. Other characters involved may have known, but we didn't know until later in the game. So I don't know what's in store for Tav, or which ever of the Origin characters someone may choose to play as. I don't have access to story boards, or scripts, or even a vague outline of Act II or Act III.

The only real issue I've had so far is not being a fan of the "only some of the NPCs will carry on after Act I" thing. I'd much rather they continue on in the story, even if it's a "split the party, and send some this way, and some that way" thing, or an "All hands on deck" situation to get to where ever it is we're going from where we are now.

Joined: Oct 2020
R
addict
Offline
addict
R
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by robertthebard
Originally Posted by Tuco
Originally Posted by Alexandrite
I still don't quite understand what the issue is, here.
And before anyone throws smelly boots and rotten eggs at me and calls me a "Larian fangirl", I'm not - this is the first of their games I've ever played... I just happen to love this particular game the way it is shaping up, is all. I've never played the original BG games (well, BG1 a little, and this year not 20 years ago) and I've never played the Divinity series.

Originally Posted by Niara
That is what D:OS2 ended up being like... and this game design is going exactly the same way, despite promises from Larian to the contrary.

I didn't know that. But in THIS game, it's reversed, and we are starting off being encouraged to play our own player-created character. The other Origin characters aren't playable yet. Where is the issue?

You CAN play your own custom character with or without the NPC companions.
You CAN choose to play as one of the origin characters. Probably more characters will be coming.
You CAN choose to play either custom characters or Origin pre-made characters with friends, or for example 2 custom characters and 2 pre-made characters, etc.
You can do literally whatever you want. I don't understand how having all these options is a problem?
I'd try to explain it again but I don't see the point when you are purposefully ignoring any post that explains the issue (in fact, it's so blatant I'm suspecting I may LITERALLY be in your ignore list and you won't address this reply either) and then following with another "I don't see the problem".


You seem to think that "more options are always great" as if for some form of magic they came as a net bonus, with no compromises, when reality is very different.
I don't care if I can just "ignore Origins and play a custom character", because that doesn't address the issue. I care for everything the game had to give up to even allow these Origin characters to exist.

Let's take DOS 2 as an example: I would have gladly welcomed a game where companions interacted WAY more with each other (rather than ignoring their mutual existence and talking just to the Main Character) over one that blew most of its extra budget and manpower into writing/voicing these same few companions from multiple perspectives (read: playable or not).

...and yet, the companions do interact with each other, here for sure. It's been a while since I played DOS2, so I don't recall, one way or the other. If it's "but they're limited", are you looking to get their whole story laid out in the first act? That doesn't seem to make a lot of sense. I have already talked on the "what they gave up to make the Origin characters voiced" point. They didn't give up anything that isn't "given up" in any other game with voiced companions. If it's giving up on the PC being voiced, I doubt that it's got a lot to do with voiced NPCs. After all, the PC in BG 1 and 2 was a silent protagonist, barring some selection blurbs. Ironically, Hawke being voiced in DA 2 was one of the things that lit the old BSN forums on fire, because "their tone doesn't fit what I wanted it to be". So that's a lose/lose proposition.

If they spend too much time defining Tav, then we run into the issue of all the possible variations, even just in EA, let alone what may be possible on release. Parallel to that issue will be those that expect to be able to define that particular themselves, instead of "playing Larian's Character". I've watched this debate for decades. I've seen every iteration of the argument, and while I was initially all about silent protagonists, I've come to the realization that both have their merits, and neither is going to be perfect. Even with a silent protagonist, I've found that dialog options that I may have wanted to take weren't available. For a voiced protagonist, where was the choice to tell TIM to take a long walk off a short pier after the first mission in ME 2? Where was the option to not work for Cerebus at all? Pitfalls abound, because no matter how well a game is received, and we'd be hard pressed to claim that ME 2 wasn't a good game, and that it wasn't well received, since most people seem to believe it was the best game in the series, it's going to have things missing that players wanted, and things included that they didn't.

But I digress. The budget to make the comps voiced doesn't necessarily affect whether or not the main/custom character gets voice lines, or a lot of exposition about who they are/were before the story events. In the vast majority of these games, where the character isn't totally defined, such as the Witcher series, the character is shaped by the player's choices, from what's available, voiced or otherwise. Some of a PC's backstory doesn't even become apparent until later in the game, from the player's perspective, such as being a Bhaalspawn. Other characters involved may have known, but we didn't know until later in the game. So I don't know what's in store for Tav, or which ever of the Origin characters someone may choose to play as. I don't have access to story boards, or scripts, or even a vague outline of Act II or Act III.

The only real issue I've had so far is not being a fan of the "only some of the NPCs will carry on after Act I" thing. I'd much rather they continue on in the story, even if it's a "split the party, and send some this way, and some that way" thing, or an "All hands on deck" situation to get to where ever it is we're going from where we are now.

Ultimately, we don't know if the team will be standing after the first act is completed. The last time they touched on this topic, it was not yet fully settled.
I suspect that if people complained enough, they changed it, especially since there is a good chance that some followers will just kill each other or that the player will be able to betray them (I expect the option that, for example, we will be able to give Astarion to Cazador).
In fact, changing it shouldn't be a big problem to Larian

Last edited by Rhobar121; 18/05/21 06:31 PM.
Page 15 of 15 1 2 13 14 15

Link Copied to Clipboard
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5