Larian Banner
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 3 of 5 1 2 3 4 5
Joined: May 2021
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: May 2021
Each and every char explains fully why they follow the warden in DAO when you meet them. They all have a major stake in following the last warden, including Alistair who is grieving over Duncan and totally lost and rather immature.

Agree with post above about Hawke.

Also, in DAI, you are the Herald of Andraste after Haven. You are basically the messiah and a figurehead upon which the Inquisition builds legitimacy.

Shepherd in the ME series is also fully fleshed out as the leader.

One can say many harsh things about Bioware…but they knew how to create believable companion chars and party dynamics that made internal sense.

Also…consider the intros to all of those companions and how you went about recruiting them. Hell, you had to clear out a whole mage tower to get Wynne in DAO. The only interesting intro in this game was LaZael. Everyone else you just stumble upon near the ship. Karlach was ok tho…excited to meet back up with her in Baldurs Gate.

Joined: Nov 2020
A
addict
Offline
addict
A
Joined: Nov 2020
DAI was not believable at all. The gameplay was build around the main character leading a small party and running around the countryside doing various tasks. Which would have been fine if they were an inquisition agent or soldier. But why would the inquisition send out their leader and saviour to do menial tasks like gather X stones or Y herbs? They die and the inquisition loses the one with the magic hand... It was really disappointing, because BG1 & 2 are among my favourite games, but after trying DAI (apart from the story it was the awful dialogue system) I kind of gave up on Bioware games.

BG3 is a hit & miss, but it is still a better premise than DAI. Though I wonder whether some things are just not implemented yet. Shadowheart, who has the most content, will refuse to join you (unless you roll a persuasion check) if you play a githyanki. If she doesn't join your party, she later comes at you with a knife and it's implied it's because of that box. What is creepy is that this box tracks the main character; I've tried losing it, yet it always ends up in the inventory.

Last edited by ash elemental; 31/05/21 06:14 AM.
Joined: Mar 2020
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Mar 2020
I think it's a problem with most crpgs I played. I've seen much worse cases (the persona series for example) and some better cases (I think most of bg2 but even there you have characters like Anoman who defers to you for no good reason other than you are the PC)
Btw Baldur's gate 1 is also a big offender in this case.

Last edited by Abits; 31/05/21 08:35 AM.

Larian's Biggest Oversight, what to do about it, and My personal review of BG3 EA
"74.85% of you stood with the Tieflings, and 25.15% of you sided with Minthara. Good outweighs evil, it seems."
Joined: Apr 2021
V
member
Offline
member
V
Joined: Apr 2021
Originally Posted by Abits
I think it's a problem with most crpgs I played. I've seen much worse cases (the persona series for example) and some better cases (I think most of bg2 but even there you have characters like Anoman who defers to you for no good reason other than you are the PC)
Btw Baldur's gate 1 is also a big offender in this case.
I’d argue that since our mainchar is a point of attraction. The overall plot is designed around him/her. So there’s no real need to explain why anybody joined him, he’s just a main protagonist. The thing is you can describe yourself why they joined you, e.g. you are overly charismatic, agile, strong or maybe you’re super kind and those people feel safe with you.


Romances in RPGs brought us to this
Joined: Mar 2020
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Mar 2020
I don't understand your argument. Because if it is a head canon it is a true argument regardless of which game we are talking about.


Larian's Biggest Oversight, what to do about it, and My personal review of BG3 EA
"74.85% of you stood with the Tieflings, and 25.15% of you sided with Minthara. Good outweighs evil, it seems."
Joined: Apr 2021
V
member
Offline
member
V
Joined: Apr 2021
This argument is only true if the game provides a rich background for your main character, which BG1 & 2 had no lack of.

I personally never had such question, because everything revolved around my charname. Hell even Elminster guided me on my path. So for me it are the power and leadership charname possesses, as well as his will and determination. I mean it’s totally up to you to decide, given the sufficient background is provided.


Romances in RPGs brought us to this
Joined: May 2021
D
Droata Offline OP
journeyman
OP Offline
journeyman
D
Joined: May 2021
Originally Posted by VenusP
Originally Posted by Abits
I think it's a problem with most crpgs I played. I've seen much worse cases (the persona series for example) and some better cases (I think most of bg2 but even there you have characters like Anoman who defers to you for no good reason other than you are the PC)
Btw Baldur's gate 1 is also a big offender in this case.
I’d argue that since our mainchar is a point of attraction. The overall plot is designed around him/her. So there’s no real need to explain why anybody joined him, he’s just a main protagonist. The thing is you can describe yourself why they joined you, e.g. you are overly charismatic, agile, strong or maybe you’re super kind and those people feel safe with you.

There is also no real need to explain why he is fighting goblins, or where is he going, or who his companions are. You could just make up your own reasons for killing goblins and make up your own destination, and make up your own names for your companions and make up your own character traits and motivations for them. And there is no need for them to build actual environmental assets. You can imagine your own tree over there, and your own rope bridge here, etc. If you are going to be supplying all the content anyway, save yourself some money and just sit and imagine playing a game.

In any storytelling medium, any character who does anything ever absolutely must be given some kind of motivation for doing so. The essential drive of a character to follow another character is not something that should be left to fan theories and headcanon.

Joined: May 2021
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: May 2021
Originally Posted by ash elemental
DAI was not believable at all. The gameplay was build around the main character leading a small party and running around the countryside doing various tasks. Which would have been fine if they were an inquisition agent or soldier. But why would the inquisition send out their leader and saviour to do menial tasks like gather X stones or Y herbs? They die and the inquisition loses the one with the magic hand... It was really disappointing, because BG1 & 2 are among my favourite games, but after trying DAI (apart from the story it was the awful dialogue system) I kind of gave up on Bioware games.

BG3 is a hit & miss, but it is still a better premise than DAI. Though I wonder whether some things are just not implemented yet. Shadowheart, who has the most content, will refuse to join you (unless you roll a persuasion check) if you play a githyanki. If she doesn't join your party, she later comes at you with a knife and it's implied it's because of that box. What is creepy is that this box tracks the main character; I've tried losing it, yet it always ends up in the inventory.

Yeah --- I feel you regarding Bioware (MEA was the nail in the coffin for me). DAI was ok, but suffered from bad combat mechanics (that overhead camera thing was a joke) and pissing all over the dark lore of previous games.

However, I still maintain that the "deference to the player char" in DAI was well implemented. I mean, for each place you visit you get 1) a war table summary of why you are needed there, 2) a run down by your three advisors, and 3) the dwarf scout who meets you at each place to let you know the score. Sure, one could argue that the Herald should not be doing every little task they are asked to do, and some of the area missions were kinda stupid, but the point is that there was a very clear system in place that explained why people followed and why you were going to one area to meet with whoever you were meeting, etc. In fact, I think it was one of the deeper mechanics I have ever seen in an rpg that attempted to justify why you were doing anything. Add to that the war table missions where you were the deciding vote after reading the input from your three advisors, as well as the seat-o-judgement rulings, and boom ---- there is a logical (sort of) in-game reason why folks follow you around.

DAO = you were the last Warden who held the treaties and won over companions as you quested
DA2 - you had friends and family that had your back as you improved your lot in life
DAI - you were the Herald and were trying to build infrastructure and legitimacy

Idk --- I had no issue in those games with *overall* internal consistency. Here, in BG3, it is much more nebulous. You are all looking for a healer and somehow, you take the lead to decide where to go next. And I think it will only get worse if one plays as an origin char. I simply cannot see why any of my companions would follow any of the others around.

Of course, perhaps Larian will have solid writing that explains it upon full release. You may indeed have the alpha tadpole. Or, perhaps there will be some scenes with arguments at camp between party members that ultimately come down to you being the deciding vote. Or any other number of ways to establish your role and the party's reason(s) for following you.

I am hopeful!

Last edited by timebean; 31/05/21 12:48 PM.
Joined: Mar 2020
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Mar 2020
Originally Posted by VenusP
This argument is only true if the game provides a rich background for your main character, which BG1 & 2 had no lack of.
I specifically said bg1 since in the majority of bg1 your background is completely unknown. By the time your character discover its backstory you already have a party of faithful companions who follow you for no good reason other than you are the PC.



Originally Posted by Droata
There is also no real need to explain why he is fighting goblins, or where is he going, or who his companions are. You could just make up your own reasons for killing goblins and make up your own destination, and make up your own names for your companions and make up your own character traits and motivations for them. And there is no need for them to build actual environmental assets. You can imagine your own tree over there, and your own rope bridge here, etc. If you are going to be supplying all the content anyway, save yourself some money and just sit and imagine playing a game.

In any storytelling medium, any character who does anything ever absolutely must be given some kind of motivation for doing so. The essential drive of a character to follow another character is not something that should be left to fan theories and headcanon.
Totally agree. If you think it's important it's important.


Larian's Biggest Oversight, what to do about it, and My personal review of BG3 EA
"74.85% of you stood with the Tieflings, and 25.15% of you sided with Minthara. Good outweighs evil, it seems."
Joined: Apr 2021
V
member
Offline
member
V
Joined: Apr 2021
In the case of BG1 the said background is what happens with the charname along with the mystery that surrounds him. It is particularly cool that you can experience all the story yourself both embracing his ancestry and writing your own story. No wonder for me why so many people being attracted to him. There’s no need to force any cause for their company, since the charname himself is a cause enough.

This is what BG3 lacks imo. Mainchar is bland and practically non existent. He resembles more of an observer, while the first roles belong to his companions.


Romances in RPGs brought us to this
Joined: Mar 2020
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Mar 2020
Originally Posted by VenusP
In the case of BG1 the said background is what happens with the charname along with the mystery that surrounds him. It is particularly cool that you can experience all the story yourself both embracing his ancestry and writing your own story. No wonder for me why so many people being attracted to him. There’s no need to force any cause for their company, since the charname himself is a cause enough.

This is what BG3 lacks imo. Mainchar is bland and practically non existent. He resembles more of an observer, while the first roles belong to his companions.
You can criticize the BG3 MC if you want, but that's not what this topic is about. This topic is about the relationship between the MC and the companions. the OP claimed that the way the MC is built makes it hard to believe people will follow him.

I think it is a very common problem to crpgs, and was present in bg1 as well, regardless of how good the backstory is (and at least on the case of bg1, it's really good)


Larian's Biggest Oversight, what to do about it, and My personal review of BG3 EA
"74.85% of you stood with the Tieflings, and 25.15% of you sided with Minthara. Good outweighs evil, it seems."
Joined: Apr 2021
V
member
Offline
member
V
Joined: Apr 2021
Originally Posted by Abits
You can criticize the BG3 MC if you want, but that's not what this topic is about. This topic is about the relationship between the MC and the companions. the OP claimed that the way the MC is built makes it hard to believe people will follow him.
How is that you can’t see these two problems are closely related? Well in fact it’s the same problem: MC is strictly nobody hence doesn’t have any ground to claim leadership.
On the other hand we had the BGs 1 & 2 MC who had ALL the background to be a leader.


Romances in RPGs brought us to this
Joined: Mar 2020
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Mar 2020
Originally Posted by VenusP
Originally Posted by Abits
You can criticize the BG3 MC if you want, but that's not what this topic is about. This topic is about the relationship between the MC and the companions. the OP claimed that the way the MC is built makes it hard to believe people will follow him.
How is that you can’t see these two problems are closely related? Well in fact it’s the same problem: MC is strictly nobody hence doesn’t have any ground to claim leadership.
On the other hand we had the BGs 1 & 2 MC who had ALL the background to be a leader.
It is clearly related, sure, but like I proved with bg1, great MC backstory and character doesn't necessarily solve the problem.


Larian's Biggest Oversight, what to do about it, and My personal review of BG3 EA
"74.85% of you stood with the Tieflings, and 25.15% of you sided with Minthara. Good outweighs evil, it seems."
Joined: Nov 2020
A
addict
Offline
addict
A
Joined: Nov 2020
Originally Posted by VenusP
In the case of BG1 the said background is what happens with the charname along with the mystery that surrounds him. It is particularly cool that you can experience all the story yourself both embracing his ancestry and writing your own story. No wonder for me why so many people being attracted to him. There’s no need to force any cause for their company, since the charname himself is a cause enough.

This is what BG3 lacks imo. Mainchar is bland and practically non existent. He resembles more of an observer, while the first roles belong to his companions.
Companions in BG1 don't care about your character's mystery; you don't discuss the magical dreams or the random assassin attacks, or Gorion's letter with them. Even with those that should care, e.g. Dynaheir, since she is supposedly there to figure out the prophecy. You don't get to write your own story in BG1 either. The main plot follows the same route to arrive at the one possible ending (other being losing the game). Whether you played a hero or a villain, whether your character was wise and noble, or dumber than a rock and with the charisma of a slug, none of this matters. The story in BG1 doesn't care about the character you have created. There is very little character reactivity in BG2, and while the main plot has some branching, ultimately it doesn't impact the ending either. ToB is the first one in the series to give you a choice of the ending, but this yes/no question is available to all generalist charnames to complete the BG saga.

Compare that to a game that came out close to BG1 (if I remember things right): Planescape Torment. How the story unfolds and ends depends on the Nameless One you are playing. That is how writing your character's story in a game looks like.

Last edited by ash elemental; 31/05/21 02:01 PM.
Joined: Mar 2021
Location: Austin, TX
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Mar 2021
Location: Austin, TX
Originally Posted by ash elemental
Originally Posted by VenusP
In the case of BG1 the said background is what happens with the charname along with the mystery that surrounds him. It is particularly cool that you can experience all the story yourself both embracing his ancestry and writing your own story. No wonder for me why so many people being attracted to him. There’s no need to force any cause for their company, since the charname himself is a cause enough.

This is what BG3 lacks imo. Mainchar is bland and practically non existent. He resembles more of an observer, while the first roles belong to his companions.
Companions in BG1 don't care about your character's mystery; you don't discuss the magical dreams or the random assassin attacks, or Gorion's letter with them. Even with those that should care, e.g. Dynaheir, since she is supposedly there to figure out the prophecy. You don't get to write your own story in BG1 either. The main plot follows the same route to arrive at the one possible ending (other being losing the game). Whether you played a hero or a villain, whether your character was wise and noble, or dumber than a rock and with the charisma of a slug, none of this matters. The story in BG1 doesn't care about the character you have created. There is very little character reactivity in BG2, and while the main plot has some branching, ultimately it doesn't impact the ending either. ToB is the first one in the series to give you a choice of the ending, but this yes/no question is available to all generalist charnames to complete the BG saga.

Compare that to a game that came out close to BG1 (if I remember things right): Planescape Torment. How the story unfolds and ends depends on the Nameless One you are playing. That is how writing your character's story in a game looks like.

I LOVE Planescape: Torment. One of the best games ever written and easily Chris Avellone's best work. It stands as the only game in history that has been elevated to the status of literature.

It such a great anti-hero adventure. And the ending - the really good ending - is so bittersweet.


Blackheifer
Joined: Apr 2021
V
member
Offline
member
V
Joined: Apr 2021
I didn’t say that interaction between MC and party members is especially well done in BG1. It’s the BG2 which elevated this side on another level. My point was merely that I totally can see why people followed BG1 MC: even traveling with him for some limited time was obviously enough to get the idea that the dude at least is interesting to hang with (I personally don’t see a problem to switch on my imagination and imagine how say Branven hears him sleepwalking and speaking with his father while spending a night in the forest and on the next morning he is able to slow poison). Would have been silly to expect something like BG1 to provide all the context of the complex relationships existed in the party. But I really liked it this way. Broad field for imagination.


Romances in RPGs brought us to this
Joined: Mar 2020
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Mar 2020
Originally Posted by VenusP
I didn’t say that interaction between MC and party members is especially well done in BG1. It’s the BG2 which elevated this side on another level. My point was merely that I totally can see why people followed BG1 MC: even traveling with him for some limited time was obviously enough to get the idea that the dude at least is interesting to hang with (I personally don’t see a problem to switch on my imagination and imagine how say Branven hears him sleepwalking and speaking with his father while spending a night in the forest and on the next morning he is able to slow poison). Would have been silly to expect something like BG1 to provide all the context of the complex relationships existed in the party. But I really liked it this way. Broad field for imagination.
But again, if your solution for Bg1 MC's lack of any defining personality boils down to headcanon, you can do the same for Bg3 (and some people do it). When you give one game a break and not the other, it just makes you look like you have double standards.

Why don't you imagine BG3's MC is this charismatic guy that everyone love? What's stopping you?

Last edited by Abits; 31/05/21 02:36 PM.

Larian's Biggest Oversight, what to do about it, and My personal review of BG3 EA
"74.85% of you stood with the Tieflings, and 25.15% of you sided with Minthara. Good outweighs evil, it seems."
Joined: Apr 2021
V
member
Offline
member
V
Joined: Apr 2021
Originally Posted by Abits
Originally Posted by VenusP
I didn’t say that interaction between MC and party members is especially well done in BG1. It’s the BG2 which elevated this side on another level. My point was merely that I totally can see why people followed BG1 MC: even traveling with him for some limited time was obviously enough to get the idea that the dude at least is interesting to hang with (I personally don’t see a problem to switch on my imagination and imagine how say Branven hears him sleepwalking and speaking with his father while spending a night in the forest and on the next morning he is able to slow poison). Would have been silly to expect something like BG1 to provide all the context of the complex relationships existed in the party. But I really liked it this way. Broad field for imagination.
But again, if your solution for Bg1 MC's lack of any defining personality boils down to headcanon, you can do the same for Bg3 (and some people do it). When you give one game a break and not the other, it just makes you look like you have double standards.

Why don't you imagine BG3's MC is this charismatic guy that everyone love? What's stopping you?
I’m starting to think we’re going in circles. Because BG1 MC is full of story, while BG3 MC is nothing. Well, yet. Hopefully this will change.
And of course I have double standards, let the one who doesn’t throw a stone at me.


Romances in RPGs brought us to this
Joined: Mar 2020
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Mar 2020
Well at least in the case of Bg3 MC, you can't know for sure since you never played the full game. Who knows maybe by the end of the game you discover the MC has a crazy and amazing backstory that you only discover in the final hours of the game. Does that retroactively make him a good MC? Sure. Does that mean the companions deference to him throughout the game suddenly make sense? No.

Last edited by Abits; 31/05/21 03:36 PM.

Larian's Biggest Oversight, what to do about it, and My personal review of BG3 EA
"74.85% of you stood with the Tieflings, and 25.15% of you sided with Minthara. Good outweighs evil, it seems."
Joined: Nov 2020
A
addict
Offline
addict
A
Joined: Nov 2020
Originally Posted by VenusP
I didn’t say that interaction between MC and party members is especially well done in BG1. It’s the BG2 which elevated this side on another level. My point was merely that I totally can see why people followed BG1 MC: even traveling with him for some limited time was obviously enough to get the idea that the dude at least is interesting to hang with (I personally don’t see a problem to switch on my imagination and imagine how say Branven hears him sleepwalking and speaking with his father while spending a night in the forest and on the next morning he is able to slow poison). Would have been silly to expect something like BG1 to provide all the context of the complex relationships existed in the party. But I really liked it this way. Broad field for imagination.
At which point you are using your imagination to make up for what is actually not in the game. BG1 does not have much reactivity towards the main character. This is not limited solely to charname - companion interactions, although sometimes the lack of that becomes very evident, e.g. if you let one of the "paired" companions die, leave their body lying somewhere and the other doesn't care. But it's also about the lack of alternative paths & endings, because as a result, it doesn't matter what character you create. No charname is ever too dumb or repulsive to lead the party to victory, because there is only one way to achieve victory in the game, and that is to kill the bad guy.

To be fair, I think this lack of character restrictions is another factor why the BG saga was so popular. I think the majority of players don't like the choices in games be too limiting, and prefer when their character can potentially achieve everything in the game. Even if they use charisma as a dump stat.

Originally Posted by Blackheifer
It such a great anti-hero adventure. And the ending - the really good ending - is so bittersweet.
My favourite ending isn't even the endgame, it is when you break the rules to break the eternal cycle; that is, goad the Lady to permanently kill TNO.

Page 3 of 5 1 2 3 4 5

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