Larian Banner
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 4 of 5 1 2 3 4 5
Joined: Apr 2021
V
member
Offline
member
V
Joined: Apr 2021
Originally Posted by Abits
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.

I mostly agree with you except BG1’s MC was interesting from the start :b


Romances in RPGs brought us to this
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 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.

It was a two strikes rule with her wasn't it? Or did you just have to worship her?

Last edited by Blackheifer; 31/05/21 04:40 PM.

Blackheifer
Joined: Nov 2020
A
addict
Offline
addict
A
Joined: Nov 2020
Originally Posted by Blackheifer
It was a two strikes rule with her wasn't it? Or did you just have to worship her?
Two strikes, though there are few ways to anger her and worshipping is one of them.

Joined: Mar 2020
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Mar 2020
Originally Posted by VenusP
Originally Posted by Abits
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.

I mostly agree with you except BG1’s MC was interesting from the start :b
I never said something to contradict that. Again, not what we discuss 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: May 2021
D
Droata Offline OP
journeyman
OP Offline
journeyman
D
Joined: May 2021
Originally Posted by Abits
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)

I have it on good authority that the OP wasn't talking about how the MC is built. Rather it's about how the companions are built. It isn't just that they didn't give the companions a compelling reason to obey the MC. Its more egregious than that. They went out of their way to give them reasons NOT to obey the MC and then just ignored all those reasons when making them obey the MC anyway, without explanation.

Lae'zel is given strong motives to find her creche. Not only is it her duty to her Queen, but from her perspective, it is her only hope of getting the tadpole out and not turning into a mind flayer. And then a Tiefling tells her that Githyanki were spotted not a five-minute walk from where we are standing. She should be making a beeline for that bridge no matter what you say. But if Tav the Guild Artisan decides to just head into the Underdark and fight some minotaurs instead, she will abandon her duty to her Queen and accept the almost absolute certainty of turning into a mind flayer in order to follow Tav the Guild Artisan around like a lost puppy. And this very dramatic 180 for her character is never addressed.

Gale needs to eat magic items in order to survive. But his obedience to Tav the Guild Artisan is so extreme that he will beg for Tav to let him eat a magic staff that HE picked up and has in HIS inventory. Why in the world would he not just eat the staff that he picked up from Ethel's lair? Why is everything anyone finds on their journey automatically the property of Tav? If Tav's ownership of all the party's property is going to be a plot point, shouldn't there be some explanation of how that ownership was established? What compelling reason does Gale have that he would literally rather die than do something without Tav's permission?

Even other games that don't give particularly strong motives for characters to follow the MC at least don't give them the strongest possible reasons NOT to and then make them do it anyway. BG3 is hands down the worst culprit I've seen in this regard.

Last edited by Droata; 31/05/21 06:23 PM.
Joined: Apr 2021
V
member
Offline
member
V
Joined: Apr 2021
Originally Posted by Abits
Originally Posted by VenusP
Originally Posted by Abits
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.

I mostly agree with you except BG1’s MC was interesting from the start :b
I never said something to contradict that. Again, not what we discuss about
I understand it as the two questions cannot be reviewed separately. This is like my whole point.


Romances in RPGs brought us to this
Joined: Mar 2020
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Mar 2020
Again, don't think the situation is much different than other games. The party has a good reason to stick together - they all have tadpoles that try to kill them and so they have a common goal. Why they specifically follow the MC? No good reason. I think there are two reasons for it -
1) like I said, it's a crpg trope, and it seems hard to construct a main character who is both a completely clean slate of sorts (in the DND sense that the MC could be a charismatic bard or a stupid barbarian) and a guy you have a good reason of following.
2) the origin system - the fact that anyone of the party is also the potential leader, depending on who you chose, makes it very hard to create one unified reason for the party to follow.

Last edited by Abits; 31/05/21 06:33 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 Droata
Even other games that don't give particularly strong motives for characters to follow the MC at least don't give them the strongest possible reasons NOT to and then make them do it anyway. BG3 is hands down the worst culprit I've seen in this regard.
I can think of some. BG1 & the easy trick to get rid of one of the paired NPCs (by letting them be killed), which I think quite a few players have used over the years. BG2 also lets you do some funny things as an evil character with good NPCs, because most of the companion reactions are tied to reputation, and that can be bought at temples. Pathfinder Kingmaker, where no matter how badly you treat Linzi, she stays as the punching bag. Ironically, the same can be said for the player character, because even though the game gives you a very good reason to get rid of her (when she steals from you), even an evil character won't be able to execute or exile her. In general I've found that - except for Ekundayo and Tristan - the good characters in PK didn't care much what my evil baroness did. Quite funny, considering the evil kingdom looks like one of the dungeon levels from Diablo.

Last edited by ash elemental; 31/05/21 07:47 PM.
Joined: Aug 2014
member
Offline
member
Joined: Aug 2014
Originally Posted by Abits
2) the origin system - the fact that anyone of the party is also the potential leader, depending on who you chose, makes it very hard to create one unified reason for the party to follow.
The Alpha Tadpole. It could be administered to anyone.

Joined: Mar 2020
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Mar 2020
Originally Posted by Ikke
Originally Posted by Abits
2) the origin system - the fact that anyone of the party is also the potential leader, depending on who you chose, makes it very hard to create one unified reason for the party to follow.
The Alpha Tadpole. It could be administered to anyone.
Interesting idea. This could work actually


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
I don’t think that dominating your companions is what makes a good adventuring party. Adding some personality to the MC and giving him enough dialog options will work better.


Romances in RPGs brought us to this
Joined: Dec 2020
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Dec 2020
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.

Counterpoint: The main character still going around with a small party is still believable because they are still the only one capable of sealing the numerous rifts along the countryside. Plus they run into numerous enemies who get completely caught off guard by the Inquisitor's party banging on their front door. They're not doing that while holed up in Haven or Skyhold, and coming with an actual army would have basically just told all the enemy forces where the Inquisitor was (and where they WEREN'T), and what they were planning to do.

The menial tasks and stuff I agree with though. But that's really on Bioware for thinking Inquisition needed to play like a single player MMO more than anything else.

Still, Corypheus was an awful, awful villain. Accomplished jack shit after Haven, basically disappeared entirely up until the last two main quests, and you would think he'd have tried to attack Skyhold at some point. Though I also remember reading that the Fade sequence after that warden fortress was originally going to entail falling into the Deep Roads and meeting a certain sentient Darkspawn from DA:O Awakening, and it got replaced by a clearly rushed Fade sequence with a convenient amnesia subplot instead.

Last edited by Saito Hikari; 31/05/21 09:28 PM.
Joined: Nov 2020
A
addict
Offline
addict
A
Joined: Nov 2020
Originally Posted by Saito Hikari
Counterpoint: The main character still going around with a small party is still believable because they are still the only one capable of sealing the numerous rifts along the countryside. Plus they run into numerous enemies who get completely caught off guard by the Inquisitor's party banging on their front door. They're not doing that while holed up in Haven or Skyhold, and coming with an actual army would have basically just told all the enemy forces where the Inquisitor was (and where they WEREN'T), and what they were planning to do.
The main character going around with the small party is the part that doesn't make sense. What you describe - a small force doing surprise missions - is the job you give your agents, scouts, spies or soldiers. It's not the job you give to the only character who is capable of closing the magical portal in the sky, because if they die, you lose. Yet no one cares if the inquisitor elects to go on a solo adventure travelling around the countryside.

Joined: Dec 2020
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Dec 2020
Well, like I said, there are still tons of rifts along the countryside, and no regular small surprise force is going to be able to do anything about that. Hell, the game even flat out shows you that there are scouts assessing the situation in each area right before you arrive for the first time, meaning that steps have already been taken to minimize risk to the Inquisitor as much as possible. The Inquisitor is only brought in when the situation is severe enough to be brought to your attention and there's no other options.

Inquisiton had a lot of problems, but how it handled the main character was really not among them. Sure, you can go on solo adventures with the Inquisitor, but I chalk that up to gameplay oddity instead of an actual narrative fault, since you can do something equally dumb from a narrative standpoint in most other party-based games too.

Joined: Apr 2021
Location: Australia
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Apr 2021
Location: Australia
Originally Posted by Saito Hikari
Counterpoint: The main character still going around with a small party is still believable because they are still the only one capable of sealing the numerous rifts along the countryside. Plus they run into numerous enemies who get completely caught off guard by the Inquisitor's party banging on their front door.

Yep, been re-playing this recently while waiting for Patch 5. (because I never finished it when it first came out - my bad, I know!) The question of "why am I running around doing all this when I have henchmen to do it for me" never entered my mind. You already send people to do plenty of politicial/menial tasks via the War Table, and you ARE the only one who can close the rifts - nobody else can do it for you. It is after all, a game - a single player adventure game, where you are having the adventures. It wouldn't be much fun if the whole game was you just directing other people via the War Table to have adventures for you.

Joined: May 2021
A
stranger
Offline
stranger
A
Joined: May 2021
Originally Posted by Abits
1) like I said, it's a crpg trope, and it seems hard to construct a main character who is both a completely clean slate of sorts (in the DND sense that the MC could be a charismatic bard or a stupid barbarian) and a guy you have a good reason of following.
2) the origin system - the fact that anyone of the party is also the potential leader, depending on who you chose, makes it very hard to create one unified reason for the party to follow.

Even if it is a trope, doesn't mean it's something that necessarily has to be followed. I think possibly the most elegant solution for the problem would be if the main character was the one who took 'ownership' and is the one that came up with a plan to save them; whether it's going to find a healer or whatever. Maybe when he wakes up on the shoreline the character see's evidence for a druid enclave nearby and knows the general location for where it could be found.

Droatia, in case you read this comment too, maybe Lae'zel stays with the MC simply because despite all of her (considerable) bluster, she isn't stupid enough to charge off into unknown territory with minimal armaments (and skill - as she's somehow only lvl1). There is (comparative) safety in numbers after all.

Joined: Nov 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Nov 2020
There are signs that they mean to expand or modify the opening of the game, with having a key to shadowheart's pod. It is possible other Origin companions will be added and their deference comes from the player controlled character being the one who rescued everyone from the mindflayers and hell?

Joined: Nov 2020
A
addict
Offline
addict
A
Joined: Nov 2020
Originally Posted by Saito Hikari
Well, like I said, there are still tons of rifts along the countryside, and no regular small surprise force is going to be able to do anything about that. Hell, the game even flat out shows you that there are scouts assessing the situation in each area right before you arrive for the first time, meaning that steps have already been taken to minimize risk to the Inquisitor as much as possible. The Inquisitor is only brought in when the situation is severe enough to be brought to your attention and there's no other options.

Inquisiton had a lot of problems, but how it handled the main character was really not among them. Sure, you can go on solo adventures with the Inquisitor, but I chalk that up to gameplay oddity instead of an actual narrative fault, since you can do something equally dumb from a narrative standpoint in most other party-based games too.
I was not talking about sending small squads to close the rifts, but rather, that they should handle the other jobs. Because your inquisitor is not, in fact, only closing the rifts. I didn't have the impression inquisitor was "only brought in when the situation is severe enough" when playing DAI. The maps are full of inane quests, such as "bring back my lost cattle". But no one from your inner circle, or your companions, ever questions the stupidity of such quests, or the inquisitor risking themselves doing them. Even Cassandra, who went against the chantry to establish the inquisition, doesn't care if the inquisitor wastes time picking flowers or goes to solo fight a dragon. My impression was also that, ironically, there is no reactivity towards closing the rifts; you can leave them open, and still nothing happens and no one comments on that either.

It's not a matter of gameplay odditiies; the gameplay in DAI just doesn't support the narrative it is trying to build. Companion reactions (or rather lack of) included.

Last edited by ash elemental; 01/06/21 07:41 AM.
Joined: May 2021
D
Droata Offline OP
journeyman
OP Offline
journeyman
D
Joined: May 2021
Originally Posted by Arijharn
Originally Posted by Abits
1) like I said, it's a crpg trope, and it seems hard to construct a main character who is both a completely clean slate of sorts (in the DND sense that the MC could be a charismatic bard or a stupid barbarian) and a guy you have a good reason of following.
2) the origin system - the fact that anyone of the party is also the potential leader, depending on who you chose, makes it very hard to create one unified reason for the party to follow.

Even if it is a trope, doesn't mean it's something that necessarily has to be followed. I think possibly the most elegant solution for the problem would be if the main character was the one who took 'ownership' and is the one that came up with a plan to save them; whether it's going to find a healer or whatever. Maybe when he wakes up on the shoreline the character see's evidence for a druid enclave nearby and knows the general location for where it could be found.

Droatia, in case you read this comment too, maybe Lae'zel stays with the MC simply because despite all of her (considerable) bluster, she isn't stupid enough to charge off into unknown territory with minimal armaments (and skill - as she's somehow only lvl1). There is (comparative) safety in numbers after all.

Sure. They could have told that story. But they didn't. Script it so that after the Tiefling reveals the location of the Githyanki, going any other direction will trigger a conversation where Lae'zel says something to the effect of:

"The Tiefling said they saw the Githyanki this way."

Follow this up with some dialogue where some companions want to go find the Githyanki and others think that Nettie is the best bet at getting the tadpole out without ending up as Githyanki slaves. The group is evenly split and the MC has to break the tie. If they don't choose to go stright to the Githyanki, we should see the indecision in Lae'zel's face, and the moment she reluctantly decides to stay with the group. If that was the story they were trying to tell, then this decision is the most pivotal moment in Lae'zel's arc thus far. It doesn't get a pursuasion roll, or a cutscene, or any acknowledgment of any kind.

And it's more than just Lae'zel. The legendary Blade of Frontiers has taken it upon himself to help the Tieflings in their hour of need, and enlists Tav to help him. But as soon as he joins the party, he is an obedient little sycophant, living in the shadow of Tav the Guild Artisan. He is literally so obedient that he won't settle a score with the goblin who took his eye unless he can get permission from Tav first.

Gale needs to eat magic items in order to survive. But his obedience to Tav the Guild Artisan is so extreme that he will beg for Tav to let him eat a magic staff that HE picked up and has in HIS inventory. Why in the world would he not just eat the staff that he picked up from Ethel's lair? Why is everything anyone finds on their journey automatically the property of Tav? If Tav's ownership of all the party's property is going to be a plot point, shouldn't there be some explanation of how that ownership was established? What compelling reason does Gale have that he would literally rather die than do something without Tav's permission?

I am not so much concerned whether anyone can come up with a fan theory or headcanon for any particular contradiction that will help them continue to enjoy the game. I am more concerned that fan theories and headcanon are necessary to justify really fundamental things about the characters. It does not give me any confidence that the people making the game care about who their own characters are and what drives them. Even worse, I feel like the people making the game have an attitude that telling a story that makes sense isn't important because "it's just a video game lol." I would love to be proven wrong about this.

Joined: Dec 2020
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Dec 2020
Originally Posted by ash elemental
I was not talking about sending small squads to close the rifts, but rather, that they should handle the other jobs. Because your inquisitor is not, in fact, only closing the rifts. I didn't have the impression inquisitor was "only brought in when the situation is severe enough" when playing DAI. The maps are full of inane quests, such as "bring back my lost cattle". But no one from your inner circle, or your companions, ever questions the stupidity of such quests, or the inquisitor risking themselves doing them. Even Cassandra, who went against the chantry to establish the inquisition, doesn't care if the inquisitor wastes time picking flowers or goes to solo fight a dragon. My impression was also that, ironically, there is no reactivity towards closing the rifts; you can leave them open, and still nothing happens and no one comments on that either.

It's not a matter of gameplay odditiies; the gameplay in DAI just doesn't support the narrative it is trying to build. Companion reactions (or rather lack of) included.

Okay, yeah, I'll give you that. I just don't particularly recognize the more inane sidequests as canon, as they're obviously padding from the unfocused open world direction that DA:I took. I really hope DA:4 reins it in.

Come to think of it, Pathfinder Kingmaker had that problem too, it was just kind of less noticeable there due to the massive amount of downtime in between chapters just managing the kingdom masking it all. It must have been bad enough for the devs to take note, because I just looked at my quest log in WotR beta to compare and notice an overall distinct lack of sidequests that one would consider padding filler. Reading through it, It appears everything I've done so far has been relevant to the overall narrative or the party in some way...

Originally Posted by Droata
I am not so much concerned whether anyone can come up with a fan theory or headcanon for any particular contradiction that will help them continue to enjoy the game. I am more concerned that fan theories and headcanon are necessary to justify really fundamental things about the characters. It does not give me any confidence that the people making the game care about who their own characters are and what drives them. Even worse, I feel like the people making the game have an attitude that telling a story that makes sense isn't important because "it's just a video game lol." I would love to be proven wrong about this.

Hm. That is something to consider.

I've noticed lately that for some characters, a lot of the discussion in regards to their appeal revolves around what they MIGHT be in the future, not what they are as of now. Like a lot of the excitement for them, Gale especially, is based on fan theories more than anything else. This is pretty dangerous, because the expectations for them are going to go through the roof. If Larian fails to deliver, we're going to end up with a lot of upset people telling Larian how they should have handled them. Kind of like what happened with Dragon Age Inquisition and Pillars of Eternity 2 in regards to how they both handled the main quest (which was VERY poorly).

Last edited by Saito Hikari; 01/06/21 10:04 AM.
Page 4 of 5 1 2 3 4 5

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