Larian Banner
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 3 of 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Joined: Dec 2020
S
addict
Offline
addict
S
Joined: Dec 2020
Originally Posted by Blackheifer
And this highlights two separate niche demographics of players: Players who think D&D is the rules and players who think D&D is about the story you tell (focus on companions, romances etc.). Probably the healthy demographic here are the ones who put equal value in both and tbh that makes the most sense to me personally.

Pretty much. I still value Solasta slightly higher because I'm of the opinion that it's harder to create a cohesive combat system and a functional UI than it is to create a good story. Larian had 2-3 games to figure out the UI part especially, so I'm not really expecting anything further in that department. That said, cinematics are hard too, but also in the realm of 'obscene budget' territory, so I naturally weigh that far less than everything else. I read something in another thread that put it best - Larian has great ambition and their projects have a massive sense of scale, but compared to every other cRPG developer, they really stumble on the fundamentals.

WotR so far blows BG3 out of the water on a writing level anyway, at least when it comes to character interactions (which I weigh much higher than stuff like the background details and main story, because you are going to be spending most of the game interacting with your companions to begin with). But Solasta and WotR are currently far more feature-complete, and it's unlikely that BG3 will be full launching anywhere before Summer 2022 with the scale it has. So Larian at least has the time to see what both projects do right and maybe improve on that.

I am sure once BG3 is done that I'll regard it as the better game than Solasta overall. Especially if they actually rein in all the questionable combat mechanics.

But in a direct comparison to WotR... It's going to be hard to determine, and largely going to be a comparison to whether people value cinematics or party interactions. It's currently shaping up to be something that has the potential to revitalize the RTwP scene, the same way DOS2 did for turn-based games. Perhaps even beyond that, with its hybrid system. And the companion writing is so exceptional that we'd be lucky to see future cRPGs taking cues from what WotR does to add a lot of hidden depth to its massive cast of party members. (Turns out actually designing the companions from the ground up to talk to each other and work as pieces of the larger narrative instead of only reacting to the player is the key!)

Last edited by Saito Hikari; 28/05/21 05:13 AM.
Joined: Feb 2020
Location: Belgium
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Feb 2020
Location: Belgium
Originally Posted by Blackheifer
[quote=Maximuuus]

And this highlights two separate niche demographics of players: Players who think D&D is the rules and players who think D&D is about the story you tell (focus on companions, romances etc.). Probably the healthy demographic here are the ones who put equal value in both and tbh that makes the most sense to me personally.

This makes sense to me... But it depend what you call "story you tell".

First of all Solasta's story is not that bad. That's a myth.
It's pretty simple and linear but it totally makes the job.
I ended the whole game a few days ago and it's not worse than many other games.

In a way the story in Solasta looks way more DnD to me than BG3's one. It hasn't the lore but it totally has the spirit even in it's mechanic. I cannot choose where I'm going but I'm really travelling in the world. I have to be prepared, there's time, night, it's dangerous, etc... But I also met companions for a while, I also have a bit of side quests, the character personnality I builded matter on how they react the events...

The only thing that's missing is freedom but every "concept" works even if it require improvement.
The story flows from the beginning to the end.

On the other hand BG3 is far from being perfect from a "story" point of view. It's amazing that we can still discover new area every playthrough but the map design is "gamey" and is completely wrong according to the story (goblins can't find the druid is the most common exemple).
Same about the companions... They never react and have no opinions, they never talk together,... About the main story I won't talk too much because we don't really know much but having 2 pathes is not what I call "deep".
And it's the same about combats that are completely wrong from a story in the FR point of view. Combats are a "gamey" parenthesis and nothing else.

If you consider the story you're writing as a whole rather than an assembly of parts (story, exploration, combats, ...), according to me Solasta do a better job.
You couldn't describe any combats in a book you would write to tell your BG3's story. You couldn't ever talk about distance and time, you couldn't describe the world and the environment, the weather, the creatures living in an area etc... In Baldur's Gate 3 there's a huge gap between "the story" and "the gameplay".

According to me that's why BG1 and BG2 are legendary games. From the beginning to the end you're writing a consistent and a coherent story in a consistent and a coherent world with a consistent and a coherent setting. Everything works together.
It's the same in Solasta except that there are huge limitation due to the lack of money.

Tactical Adventure had to make choices and I'm glad they choose the mechanics rather than the facial animation and different story path and romance. Now they have strong foundations for the future.
Larian doesn't have to choose and that's exactly why I'm so dissapointed. They had the potential to create the best RPG and the best Tactical TB game of all time. It's too late for many things (world design) but not for many others.

Last edited by Maximuuus; 28/05/21 11:11 AM.
Joined: May 2021
D
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
D
Joined: May 2021
Originally Posted by Blackheifer
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
Originally Posted by Blackheifer
Originally Posted by GM4Him
Ok. I will admit, I have been guilty of comparing the two games, but it is becoming annoying. Larian must hate Solasta by this point. Instead of them being considered sister games and encouraging everyone to play both, Solasta has become the little sister who is trying to steal the spotlight from the older one. "Look at me! Look at me! Aren't I prettier and better?"

Can't they both just get along?😁


I get that S****** is a great D&D simulator and there is stuff there that Larian can utilize for its own system but that game is ultimately about an inch deep.

Funny to read this on the forum of the game that probably have the less deep tactical TB combats of all time^^

I don't know how you can call half of BG3's experience if half of Solasta is "an inch deep".
(Considering combats are something like half of our gameplay hours, which may not be 100% accurate).

Really, of all time? Like all gaming history? You sure you are not being hyperbolic? My gaming experience dates back to Ultima IV and Wasteland and between now and then I can think of plenty of games that didn't do turn based very well. BG3 does an excellent job. Needs work, sure it's EA, stuff is being tested.

When I say the S-word is an "inch" deep its because its only really a D&D simulator and has nothing else to offer. None of your choices matter. Its 100% linear. The story is very basic.

BG3 by comparison is a work of Art. The story is miles deep, embedded not just in scraps and whispers, and from the utterances of the dead., but also baked into the clothing, murals, jewelry, accents, and symbols. I am STILL finding new bits and pieces at 800 hours. The world is crafted, not just generated. Past the first 20 minutes and the Druid grove you have free reign on where you can go and what you can get involved in. The world will react to who you choose to be. I have faith that they will get the combat balance figured out. I enjoy it and I am not worried.

if you want to get an idea of how deep some of this goes you should check out Harbs Narbs youtube channel.

I don't know where you got the idea that the story in BG3 "miles deep." Miles wide perhaps, but not deep at all. They give the player lots and lots of choices, but without seeing characters reacting to events and interacting with each other, none of those hundreds of choices are particularly meaningful. The story in BG3 was the weakest link for me. I haven't played Solasta, so I can't compare that particular game, but NWN, NWN2, Pathfinder: Kingmaker, POE, POE2, and Tyranny were all stronger storywise than BG3 in my opinion.

Your companions hardly react to anything that happens. They defer all agency to the player for reasons that the game never bothers to address. When Wyll tells Astarion not to make any jokes about eating them, I was shocked. I was like "Wait, you guys can see each other?" I honestly can't think of a single other example of one companion directly addressing another companion outside of a couple of times I heard them bantering while wandering around the map.

Joined: Mar 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Mar 2020
Originally Posted by Droata
I don't know where you got the idea that the story in BG3 "miles deep." Miles wide perhaps, but not deep at all. They give the player lots and lots of choices, but without seeing characters reacting to events and interacting with each other, none of those hundreds of choices are particularly meaningful. The story in BG3 was the weakest link for me. I haven't played Solasta, so I can't compare that particular game, but NWN, NWN2, Pathfinder: Kingmaker, POE, POE2, and Tyranny were all stronger storywise than BG3 in my opinion.

Your companions hardly react to anything that happens. They defer all agency to the player for reasons that the game never bothers to address. When Wyll tells Astarion not to make any jokes about eating them, I was shocked. I was like "Wait, you guys can see each other?" I honestly can't think of a single other example of one companion directly addressing another companion outside of a couple of times I heard them bantering while wandering around the map.

Think it's more than a little harsh at this point to be comparing finished games to a game that is only in EA. We already know that there are various interactions missing from BG3 Act1 alone.

Joined: Jul 2014
Location: Italy
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Jul 2014
Location: Italy
Originally Posted by Icelyn
[quote=Tuco]Team Halsin!!! celebrate
Yeah, I never doubted for a second.


Party control in Baldur's Gate 3 is a complete mess that begs to be addressed. SAY NO TO THE TOILET CHAIN
Joined: Mar 2020
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Mar 2020
Originally Posted by Riandor
Originally Posted by Droata
I don't know where you got the idea that the story in BG3 "miles deep." Miles wide perhaps, but not deep at all. They give the player lots and lots of choices, but without seeing characters reacting to events and interacting with each other, none of those hundreds of choices are particularly meaningful. The story in BG3 was the weakest link for me. I haven't played Solasta, so I can't compare that particular game, but NWN, NWN2, Pathfinder: Kingmaker, POE, POE2, and Tyranny were all stronger storywise than BG3 in my opinion.

Your companions hardly react to anything that happens. They defer all agency to the player for reasons that the game never bothers to address. When Wyll tells Astarion not to make any jokes about eating them, I was shocked. I was like "Wait, you guys can see each other?" I honestly can't think of a single other example of one companion directly addressing another companion outside of a couple of times I heard them bantering while wandering around the map.

Think it's more than a little harsh at this point to be comparing finished games to a game that is only in EA. We already know that there are various interactions missing from BG3 Act1 alone.
It was the same in dos2 btw


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: Dec 2020
S
addict
Offline
addict
S
Joined: Dec 2020
Originally Posted by Abits
It was the same in dos2 btw

Yup. Party members in that game pretty much acted like the rest of the party except the lead character didn't exist. They would sometimes have a group convo about something that just happened or would consult with you about an impending choice, but they would only say it to the lead character. A big consequence of the choice to kill off all inactive companions at the end of chapter 1, which would remove a lot of the incentive to design party banter if half of the possible cast is always killed off, I'm sure.

The only instance of two companions even acknowledging each others' existence that I can remember in the entire game was with Sebille and the Red Prince towards the start of chapter 1, and only because their personal quests briefly intersected with that one blue lizardman. Even Loshe for some reason has more things to say about important NPCs you meet on the road than her fellow party members when you question her.

It's pretty much the major reason why I'm consistently baffled by the idea that people somehow consider DOS2's writing to be excellent. I mean, I used to think so too, but that was back when it was the first cRPG I've ever played.

Last edited by Saito Hikari; 28/05/21 10:19 AM.
Joined: Oct 2020
R
addict
Offline
addict
R
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Saito Hikari
Originally Posted by Blackheifer
And this highlights two separate niche demographics of players: Players who think D&D is the rules and players who think D&D is about the story you tell (focus on companions, romances etc.). Probably the healthy demographic here are the ones who put equal value in both and tbh that makes the most sense to me personally.

Pretty much. I still value Solasta slightly higher because I'm of the opinion that it's harder to create a cohesive combat system and a functional UI than it is to create a good story. Larian had 2-3 games to figure out the UI part especially, so I'm not really expecting anything further in that department. That said, cinematics are hard too, but also in the realm of 'obscene budget' territory, so I naturally weigh that far less than everything else. I read something in another thread that put it best - Larian has great ambition and their projects have a massive sense of scale, but compared to every other cRPG developer, they really stumble on the fundamentals.

WotR so far blows BG3 out of the water on a writing level anyway, at least when it comes to character interactions (which I weigh much higher than stuff like the background details and main story, because you are going to be spending most of the game interacting with your companions to begin with). But Solasta and WotR are currently far more feature-complete, and it's unlikely that BG3 will be full launching anywhere before Summer 2022 with the scale it has. So Larian at least has the time to see what both projects do right and maybe improve on that.

I am sure once BG3 is done that I'll regard it as the better game than Solasta overall. Especially if they actually rein in all the questionable combat mechanics.

But in a direct comparison to WotR... It's going to be hard to determine, and largely going to be a comparison to whether people value cinematics or party interactions. It's currently shaping up to be something that has the potential to revitalize the RTwP scene, the same way DOS2 did for turn-based games. Perhaps even beyond that, with its hybrid system. And the companion writing is so exceptional that we'd be lucky to see future cRPGs taking cues from what WotR does to add a lot of hidden depth to its massive cast of party members. (Turns out actually designing the companions from the ground up to talk to each other and work as pieces of the larger narrative instead of only reacting to the player is the key!)

It is unlikely that the RTWP games will suddenly resurrect. Games of this type recovered a bit after the premiere of PoE1 but still do not sell sensational. I'm not sure if even PoE1 feeding on the nostalgia for old IE games has sold more than 2 million. In order for Pathfinder to have a chance to sell itself in some huge circulation, the first thing it would have to do is be simplified. Kingsmaker had a high entry point which is able to effectively discourage a large number of players (it would also be appropriate to throw out a few idiotic ideas).
Theoretically, there is also the DA series, but this is a slightly different category.
What definitely distinguished DoS2 from other role-playing games is multiplayer with great freedom. I suspect that was one of the reasons for the huge popularity of the game. Still, it doesn't change the fact that DoS2 was definitely one of the best RPGs to come out, otherwise it wouldn't be in the top ten best-rated rpg games on metacritic.

Joined: Nov 2020
A
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
A
Joined: Nov 2020
Originally Posted by Droata
I don't know where you got the idea that the story in BG3 "miles deep." Miles wide perhaps, but not deep at all. They give the player lots and lots of choices, but without seeing characters reacting to events and interacting with each other, none of those hundreds of choices are particularly meaningful. The story in BG3 was the weakest link for me. I haven't played Solasta, so I can't compare that particular game, but NWN, NWN2, Pathfinder: Kingmaker, POE, POE2, and Tyranny were all stronger storywise than BG3 in my opinion.
Companions commenting on story events is something that is often missing in BG3, as it adds to characterization and helps to create that feeling of adventuring with a party. But it is not the same as the player shaping the story through their actions in the game. Something that was missing from NWN, for example. I don't remember if anything at all carried between the "modules" the original campaign was split to, but it was one of the weakest and forgettable stories I've experienced in games. Same with NWN2, and even having more party interactions (which it had compared to NWN) wasn't able to save it. Only the MotB did storytelling right, by focusing on how the player handled the spirit hunger.

It is at this point too early to tell with BG3, imo. There are some indications (and datamined spoilers) that some choices will lead to different outcomes in later chapters. And it seems like under certain circumstances some companions might impact the story as well (Gale and Raphael). Time will tell if it ends up more like NWN or MotB, though.

Joined: May 2021
D
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
D
Joined: May 2021
Originally Posted by Riandor
Originally Posted by Droata
I don't know where you got the idea that the story in BG3 "miles deep." Miles wide perhaps, but not deep at all. They give the player lots and lots of choices, but without seeing characters reacting to events and interacting with each other, none of those hundreds of choices are particularly meaningful. The story in BG3 was the weakest link for me. I haven't played Solasta, so I can't compare that particular game, but NWN, NWN2, Pathfinder: Kingmaker, POE, POE2, and Tyranny were all stronger storywise than BG3 in my opinion.

Your companions hardly react to anything that happens. They defer all agency to the player for reasons that the game never bothers to address. When Wyll tells Astarion not to make any jokes about eating them, I was shocked. I was like "Wait, you guys can see each other?" I honestly can't think of a single other example of one companion directly addressing another companion outside of a couple of times I heard them bantering while wandering around the map.

Think it's more than a little harsh at this point to be comparing finished games to a game that is only in EA. We already know that there are various interactions missing from BG3 Act1 alone.

It isn't about missing interactions. It is about how the interactions that exist are structured. I am less interested in seeing more interactions than in seeing better interactions.

Last edited by Droata; 28/05/21 10:56 AM.
Joined: May 2010
Location: Oxford
Duchess of Gorgombert
Offline
Duchess of Gorgombert
Joined: May 2010
Location: Oxford
Originally Posted by Tuco
Hey. You could say a lot of bad things about the Solasta evangelists, but to their credit at very least they aren't Halsin/Astarion/Minthara simps.

Still not as bad as Talimancers. biggrin

Originally Posted by Tuco
Also, a lot of RPG forums usually have at least one generic section dedicated to "other RPGs" if not even one for "other games" in general.
I was sort of surprised when I realized there isn't one here.

Then again, I'm not sure the volume of traffic would justify it.

There is one, it's here. First post is nearly 20 years ago!


J'aime le fromage.
Joined: May 2021
D
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
D
Joined: May 2021
Originally Posted by ash elemental
Originally Posted by Droata
I don't know where you got the idea that the story in BG3 "miles deep." Miles wide perhaps, but not deep at all. They give the player lots and lots of choices, but without seeing characters reacting to events and interacting with each other, none of those hundreds of choices are particularly meaningful. The story in BG3 was the weakest link for me. I haven't played Solasta, so I can't compare that particular game, but NWN, NWN2, Pathfinder: Kingmaker, POE, POE2, and Tyranny were all stronger storywise than BG3 in my opinion.
Companions commenting on story events is something that is often missing in BG3, as it adds to characterization and helps to create that feeling of adventuring with a party. But it is not the same as the player shaping the story through their actions in the game. Something that was missing from NWN, for example. I don't remember if anything at all carried between the "modules" the original campaign was split to, but it was one of the weakest and forgettable stories I've experienced in games. Same with NWN2, and even having more party interactions (which it had compared to NWN) wasn't able to save it. Only the MotB did storytelling right, by focusing on how the player handled the spirit hunger.

It is at this point too early to tell with BG3, imo. There are some indications (and datamined spoilers) that some choices will lead to different outcomes in later chapters. And it seems like under certain circumstances some companions might impact the story as well (Gale and Raphael). Time will tell if it ends up more like NWN or MotB, though.

I have no doubt that different player choices will lead to different outcomes. That's already in the game. For example, you can choose to make Lae'zel abandon her duty to seek out her creche, and follow you on a wild goose chase through the Underdark instead of going after the one cure for tadpoles that she knows will work. You don't even have to roll for diplomacy. You can save the Tieflings or slaughter them, join forces with the goblins, etc. There are already lots of player choices that affect the story.

Giving the player lots of choices isn't an adequate replacement for good storytelling in my opinion though. I would rather that the NPCs make more of their own choices, instead of being empty automaton vehicles for endless player choices. When the characters being affected by the player's choices are 1-dimensional and lifeless, player choices, however numerous, become meaningless.

Last edited by Droata; 28/05/21 11:18 AM.
Joined: Feb 2021
old hand
Online Content
old hand
Joined: Feb 2021
Solasta is way lower of a budget. It has sold pretty dang well for a low budget game from a startup video game company. I don't think it has a lot to do with that it is only for D&Ders.

There are many elements of that game that COULD have made it a true rival for BG3 but there are many things left unpolished because of budget. You can't say it didn't sell well because of a niche market.

Joined: Mar 2021
Location: Austin, TX
addict
Online Content
addict
Joined: Mar 2021
Location: Austin, TX
Originally Posted by GM4Him
Solasta is way lower of a budget. It has sold pretty dang well for a low budget game from a startup video game company. I don't think it has a lot to do with that it is only for D&Ders.

There are many elements of that game that COULD have made it a true rival for BG3 but there are many things left unpolished because of budget. You can't say it didn't sell well because of a niche market.

Objectively it has not sold well - the Devs know this which is why its being discounted when it has just been released. The three pillars of adventure are exploration, social interaction and combat. Sillypasta offers exactly one of those things (hint: Its the combat), and that is by definition a niche market. You want a spectrum of people who are rule-focused, non-social and enjoy a linear path. That's a very tiny market, maybe less than 1% of the total gaming market.

Having said that, I applaud them for the combat system.

Last edited by Blackheifer; 28/05/21 11:50 AM.

Blackheifer
Joined: Feb 2020
Location: Belgium
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Feb 2020
Location: Belgium
Originally Posted by Blackheifer
Originally Posted by GM4Him
Solasta is way lower of a budget. It has sold pretty dang well for a low budget game from a startup video game company. I don't think it has a lot to do with that it is only for D&Ders.

There are many elements of that game that COULD have made it a true rival for BG3 but there are many things left unpolished because of budget. You can't say it didn't sell well because of a niche market.

Objectively it has not sold well - the Devs know this which is why its being discounted when it has just been released. The three pillars of adventure are exploration, social interaction and combat. Sillypasta offers exactly one of those things (hint: Its the combat), and that is by definition a niche market. You want a spectrum of people who are rule-focused, non-social and enjoy a linear path.

Having said that, I applaud them for the combat system.

Okay... your very own opinion after playing 2 hours rather than fact...

Last edited by Maximuuus; 28/05/21 11:54 AM.
Joined: Oct 2020
R
addict
Offline
addict
R
Joined: Oct 2020
The main advertising in Solata was done by forums dedicated to BG3. It was so much that I wonder if the developers themselves decided to get free advertising.

Certain elements are hard to justify with a low budget.
Without a large budget, you save on certain elements in order to be able to refine them, otherwise none is well made.
If you cannot afford the movie dialogs, you display a window with the text.
If you can't afford good character models then you don't do character close-ups.
If you cannot afford full sound, you either give it up in whole or in part.
I could list goes on. The most important thing is to measure your plans against your budget. Otherwise the game will come out either broken (see Cyberpunk) or bland.

Joined: Oct 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Tuco
Yeah, I never doubted for a second.
grin

Joined: Nov 2020
A
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
A
Joined: Nov 2020
Originally Posted by Droata
I have no doubt that different player choices will lead to different outcomes. That's already in the game. For example, you can choose to make Lae'zel abandon her duty to seek out her creche, and follow you on a wild goose chase through the Underdark instead of going after the one cure for tadpoles that she knows will work. You don't even have to roll for diplomacy. You can save the Tieflings or slaughter them, join forces with the goblins, etc. There are already lots of player choices that affect the story.

Giving the player lots of choices isn't an adequate replacement for good storytelling in my opinion though. I would rather that the NPCs make more of their own choices, instead of being empty automaton vehicles for endless player choices. When the characters being affected by the player's choices are 1-dimensional and lifeless, player choices, however numerous, become meaningless.
For me player choice is more important to storytelling than companions. Companion interactions can add to it, but it is the choices hat can be made during quests, and the possible outcomes, that tell the story of my character. And I think a game should be telling an interesting story even if I play it solo (with no companions). I'd rather replay VotMB again, for example, then NWN or NWN2.

Edit: Also, I don't think all companion content is in the EA yet. Initially Gale had no reaction to killing the tieflings, now there is a possibility to lose him. Same as with what happens if you don't feed him magic items.

Last edited by ash elemental; 28/05/21 01:03 PM.
Joined: Apr 2021
V
member
Offline
member
V
Joined: Apr 2021
Solasta definitely made combat better than BG3 in its current state with such a game breakers as free backstabbing, cheesy advantages and wasted bonus actions balance.
Unfortunately for Solasta they didn’t have the budget big enough to neither compete with BG3 nor to afford any good title. Time will show whether they’ll succeed and maybe we will finally see the D&D revival.


Romances in RPGs brought us to this
Joined: Oct 2020
R
addict
Offline
addict
R
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by ash elemental
Originally Posted by Droata
I have no doubt that different player choices will lead to different outcomes. That's already in the game. For example, you can choose to make Lae'zel abandon her duty to seek out her creche, and follow you on a wild goose chase through the Underdark instead of going after the one cure for tadpoles that she knows will work. You don't even have to roll for diplomacy. You can save the Tieflings or slaughter them, join forces with the goblins, etc. There are already lots of player choices that affect the story.

Giving the player lots of choices isn't an adequate replacement for good storytelling in my opinion though. I would rather that the NPCs make more of their own choices, instead of being empty automaton vehicles for endless player choices. When the characters being affected by the player's choices are 1-dimensional and lifeless, player choices, however numerous, become meaningless.
For me player choice is more important to storytelling than companions. Companion interactions can add to it, but it is the choices hat can be made during quests, and the possible outcomes, that tell the story of my character. And I think a game should be telling an interesting story even if I play it solo (with no companions). I'd rather replay VotMB again, for example, then NWN or NWN2.

Edit: Also, I don't think all companion content is in the EA yet. Initially Gale had no reaction to killing the tieflings, now there is a possibility to lose him. Same as with what happens if you don't feed him magic items.

Of course, this is not all. Even in the last patch a fairly large thing was datamined regarding the interactions of certain companions (still not available to players)

Page 3 of 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

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