Larian Banner
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 2 of 3 1 2 3
Joined: Mar 2020
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Mar 2020
Originally Posted by Boblawblah
Originally Posted by Abits
I think the point is that the data Larian has on this system is misleading since although you technically had the option not to play an origin character, the non origin option was so lame and lacking that no one wanted to play it. If this is the reason Larian think the system is great than they drew the wrong conclusions from the data

You can have this average sandwich, or this shit sandwich I found!

Huh, I guess people like average sandwiches smile
That's a good way of putting it, yes


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: Oct 2020
R
addict
Offline
addict
R
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Abits
I think the point is that the data Larian has on this system is misleading since although you technically had the option not to play an origin character, the non origin option was so lame and lacking that no one wanted to play it. If this is the reason Larian think the system is great than they drew the wrong conclusions from the data

I have some doubts, it is not that this data is analyzed by a random person in the company (at least I hope). When analyzing such a large amount of data, they certainly employ specialists in this field. They would have to be terribly removed from reality for the team not to take into account such an eventuality. Especially since it is not a far-fetched theory.
Of course, there is a chance that it did, but I would say it is quite small.

Joined: Dec 2020
member
Offline
member
Joined: Dec 2020
Originally Posted by Saito Hikari
Originally Posted by Abits
But that's the main flaw of this system ever since its inception. This is one of the reasons this always seemed to me like a gimmick which is more trouble than its worth

Considering we've had no recent word on the state of their progress in regards to the origin system, I wouldn't be surprised if it ultimately gets scrapped. It would be welcome news to me at least, because it would mean that the developers have decided to redirect their efforts towards fleshing out each companion in general AND making Tav feel like less of a random bystander, instead of having to essentially design two versions of each origin companion and all of the potential writing/programming troubles that goes along with it. The origin system only really worked in DOS2 because literally everyone has the same dialogue options when you are the one controlling them outside of very infrequent unique options, there was literally ZERO party banter outside of everyone offering their input before the leader makes a big choice, and no one called out Larian for that back then because good writing isn't exactly the main draw of that game.

BG3 forcing the same thing would be nothing but awkward, among an audience with much higher expectations in regards to the writing, and one of the most immersive-breaking things in a game that people are expecting to be immersive.

For example, we already know from datamines that...

Shadowheart and Lae'zel are eventually going to confront each other in camp and try to kill each other, and one of them dies unless you pass a difficult persuasion check.

Exactly how is that supposed to play out if you're playing as one of them? Do you have to make a different skill check that's an automatic game over if you fail? Or would you have options to avoid it entirely, which is basically even more extra development resources being expended for that right there?

From the Pre-EA footage where they always played as an Origin character to the old narration style, I don't think there's ANY chance they would scrap the Origin system. I think it's very much integral to their vision of the game. There's a reason why the promotional art of the game has all of them and no "default" character among them.

I'm not really concerned with the ability to play Nice'zel or Evil Wyll being farfetched. One of the most fascinating things I like about BG3 is that depending on what scenes you get and how you respond to the companions as Tav, you will have a different experience with them than other players or even your own previous or later playthroughs. Imagine a playthrough never learning Shadowheart's secret and never opening up to the player (many of us experienced this pre-patch 3). Or for a more interesting example, compare people's opinions of Gale for those who play good and distrust him and those who play evil and don't suspect anything from him. And for me, after prioritizing Lae'zel's dialogue over all others, she's already pretty nice for a gith and pretty restrained all things considering.

My point is, we are already intended to have a certain range of interpretations of the characters. Being allowed to play them with options within that range as Origin characters is no different to me. I do think the options offered will be within reason of course. "Nice'zel" might always be narcissistic and still always want whatever it is she might want, but might have a range in how domineering she can be to get it. There's an example of this already in the Origin Unlocker mod in how you go about the Zorru scene pictured below:
[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]
So I assume Minsc would also have options within a certain believable range as well.

In response to the datamine spoiler text:
In Chubblots datamining vid, it looks like if you play as either Lae'zel or Shadowheart, you have a much easier time settling the matter. It is between them after all, so it makes sense they'd have an easier time settling it. As with all datamining tho it might be subject to change, but it's interesting to see how all this stuff is already there somewhat and already considered. The files for many of the scenes in the game have at least two versions depending on if they are a companion or origin character which is probably why the Origin Unlocker mod works at all in some cases.

Joined: Aug 2014
1
old hand
Offline
old hand
1
Joined: Aug 2014
None of the original companions should be companions in BG3.

They can't possibly do them justice considering these characters already went through an epic campaign and are real epic heroes or villains as such. You can spin a silly tale about Gale and Wyll being archmages who got depowered to level 1 by tadpoles or whatever, but you can't do that to established characters from BG 1 and 2.

Cameos would be cool though. But still the level difference is so huge it might feel forced unless you meet them later. Much later. Or else, why wouldn't an epic level Jaheira just go flatten the Mind Flayers and be done with their plotting.

Joined: Jan 2020
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Jan 2020
Unless Larian can get Jim Cummings to voice Minsc, I'm not sure I would want to see him again in any form; it would be wrong somehow, as to me the voice defines this character more than anything else.

I don't really expect to play any origin character, because the idea doesn't appeal to me compared to moulding a blank slate character. But, I'm sure many people that prefer to play pre-defined characters would love to play Minsc. And if I were to play any origin character in BG3, Minsc would be preferable to the other existing companions.

I'm sure you could play Minsc any way you want, including evil, since the character in BG1/2 had suffered brain trauma and was rather unhinged. Obviously this would require some creative writing from Larian for Minsc to self-justify his actions, but would be perfectly possible.

Joined: Nov 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Nov 2020
Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing the Origin system scrapped BUT I would still like to keep resources on giving each Origin Companion unique dialogue options cause it makes sense to allow them to interject in conversations or even act as the face in a conversation, and they would definitely handle certain things their own way.

I think this would work best for Minsc, keeping his personality intact but giving the player some control over them. Just making it that he doesn't have many outright evil Dialogue options.

Last edited by CJMPinger; 30/05/21 11:07 PM.
Joined: Nov 2020
E
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
E
Joined: Nov 2020
The notion of playing Minsc (I truly hope we can't)), highlights for me the inherent problem with playing Origins characters; I'm just not sure where I stand on being able to roleplay a character counter to the defined personality we experience while having them as companions. Ok, creative freedom or whatever, it just feels a little disingenuous to role-play Astarion or Lae'zel as some goody 2 shoes saving the world and every puppy in it. Or as others have said, role-playing Minsc as some sadistic evil bastard would just feel wrong.

Joined: Apr 2021
Location: Australia
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Apr 2021
Location: Australia
Once again I may be in the minority, not having played BG1/BG2 years ago so I have no attachment to Minsc. I can understand the apprehension about him being a playable/Origin character, for those who have become attached to him through the original games. But let's just have faith that Larian understand just how much of a beloved character he is to so many people, and the gravity of the BG legacy they've taken on, and have faith they will get it right.
It's difficult to have faith at the moment because of SO little communication from them... people are jumping to so many negative conclusions right now because of anxiety over the lack of news. But let's try to assume the positive, that they are hard at work getting things right and will tell us the details as soon as they can?

Originally Posted by Etruscan
Ok, creative freedom or whatever, it just feels a little disingenuous to role-play Astarion or Lae'zel as some goody 2 shoes saving the world and every puppy in it. Or as others have said, role-playing Minsc as some sadistic evil bastard would just feel wrong.

We shall see what happens. In DOS2 (which I only just started playing last night) the Origin characters have their own little intro telling us who they are, and so many class/spec possibilities for them. In BG3, the character classes are set, which is already a good sign - hopefully their personalities and choices will be more set as well, and we may not get options they would never choose? For example Wyll CAN'T choose to give up his one remaining eye to the Hag. I can't see him having the option to side with the Goblins/Minthara either.

As well as character-specific conversation options. I love roleplay so - at the moment I've started playing Lohse in DOS2 - whenever I see an option to speak as her, I pick that. Along the way I am learning who she is. I hope they will do the same for BG3, to have character-specific dialogue options to choose that only that particular character would say.
If it feels wrong to choose the other options, then go with what feels right for you and your playthrough.

I do think it should be strongly encouraged by Larian to play a custom character first, and then an Origin character to experience a playthrough from their side of the story.

Last edited by Alexandrite; 31/05/21 12:34 AM.
Joined: Sep 2020
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Sep 2020
I am not sure what the issue is here? If it feels wrong to play a character a certain way, then simply don't do it. If it bothers someone that others might play a character contrary to how they think they should be played, then maybe don't watch play videos or play the multiplayer with people that don't think the same way. I think this would probably be the safest way to not be bothered by how other people play their game. Most likely companions will have different dialogues for situations that will be based on how they are "supposed" to be, but all the options will still be there to take the different paths and for corruption/redemption stuff.

I think the Origin system is not going anywhere, they have spent too much time on it already and while I may not play as one myself, I am glad it exists. Many people seem to have trouble in coming up with backstories and feel "lesser" than the companions, and some people don't care about creating a character at all and just want to play the game. Origins make it easier for these people.

Joined: Mar 2021
Location: Austin, TX
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Mar 2021
Location: Austin, TX
Originally Posted by Alexandrite
Once again I may be in the minority, not having played BG1/BG2 years ago so I have no attachment to Minsc. I can understand the apprehension about him being a playable/Origin character, for those who have become attached to him through the original games. But let's just have faith that Larian understand just how much of a beloved character he is to so many people, and the gravity of the BG legacy they've taken on, and have faith they will get it right.
It's difficult to have faith at the moment because of SO little communication from them... people are jumping to so many negative conclusions right now because of anxiety over the lack of news. But let's try to assume the positive, that they are hard at work getting things right and will tell us the details as soon as they can?

As well as character-specific conversation options. I love roleplay so - at the moment I've started playing Lohse in DOS2 - whenever I see an option to speak as her, I pick that. Along the way I am learning who she is. I hope they will do the same for BG3, to have character-specific dialogue options to choose that only that particular character would say.
If it feels wrong to choose the other options, then go with what feels right for you and your playthrough.

Well said. Larian is being super ambitious and taking the big risks in jumping into this game. I celebrated the day they got this IP, because I had been with them since DOS1 and they were the only company I could see getting this right.

Could you imagine if EA/Bioware got this? The IP destroyer?! EA would get halfway through it and cancel the development and we would end up never seeing anything. Or they would release a game so full of microtransactions you would end up having to pay individually for every single line of Mincs' dialogue.

"To respond with Mincs specific dialogue please enter your credit card number"

Last edited by Blackheifer; 31/05/21 06:29 AM.

Blackheifer
Joined: Feb 2020
Location: Belgium
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Feb 2020
Location: Belgium
A lot of BG1/2 fans already consider the IP destroyed because of Larian and the divinity style.

A lot other a more "open minded" but trusting Larian doesn't seems obvious like it is for some of their fans.
I don't care being able to play Minsc, I won't ever play any origin character. I just hope he won't become another wtf Larian style character.

Last edited by Maximuuus; 31/05/21 06:38 AM.
Joined: May 2021
Location: North America
Q
member
Offline
member
Q
Joined: May 2021
Location: North America
"What if EA got it" isn't a great argument. I don't care about what EA theoretically might have done. I care about what Larian IS DOING. Just because one company is garbage doesn't give another one a pass to theoretically be slightly less garbage. I'm gonna judge their performance on its own metrics. Same goes for the "big risk" thing. Sorry but I don't give a rip if it's a risk for Larian. That's their business, not mine. And it's not a real risk if they've already sold hundreds of thousands (or millions according to SteamSpy's guessing) of copies in EA anyways.

But back on topic I share the concerns that he will, as an established good character, fall victim to a big flaw of giving the player an established character combined with the choice to play them far off of their established behavior. If they do that it'll be real hard for it to be believable. My preference is that he can be a party member but not be an origin character.

Joined: Mar 2020
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Mar 2020
Originally Posted by Zarna
I am not sure what the issue is here? If it feels wrong to play a character a certain way, then simply don't do it. If it bothers someone that others might play a character contrary to how they think they should be played, then maybe don't watch play videos or play the multiplayer with people that don't think the same way. I think this would probably be the safest way to not be bothered by how other people play their game. Most likely companions will have different dialogues for situations that will be based on how they are "supposed" to be, but all the options will still be there to take the different paths and for corruption/redemption stuff.

I think the Origin system is not going anywhere, they have spent too much time on it already and while I may not play as one myself, I am glad it exists. Many people seem to have trouble in coming up with backstories and feel "lesser" than the companions, and some people don't care about creating a character at all and just want to play the game. Origins make it easier for these people.
First I'll just say this argument is completely academic since I agree, the origin system doesn't go anywhere.

But on topic, the reason people are so angry is because there are a lot of resources that go into implementing this system, resources that could have been spent on other revenues. So those who are for the system will say it is a good usage of resources and those who are against it will say it isn't.

Personally I think that not only is it a waste of resources, it also creates unnecessary difficulties on the writing and simply isn't worth it.

But than again, I think this one is a done deal so we should just grit our teeth and move on


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: Sep 2017
Location: Norway
S
addict
Offline
addict
S
Joined: Sep 2017
Location: Norway
I imagine Larian might opt for a hybrid Origin-system where not all companions are optional player characters. At least when it comes to famous/heroic characters like Minsc. It makes ZERO sense Minsc would be a first level character, even making Minsc a lower level character to fit as a companion would be a stretch.

I like the detailed backgrounds of companions, but dislike the Origin-system as it comes with a host of negatives and only one positive.

Joined: Oct 2020
S
Sigi98 Offline OP
enthusiast
OP Offline
enthusiast
S
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Seraphael
I imagine Larian might opt for a hybrid Origin-system where not all companions are optional player characters.

I hope they will do exactly that.

Joined: Sep 2020
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Sep 2020
Originally Posted by Abits
Personally I think that not only is it a waste of resources, it also creates unnecessary difficulties on the writing and simply isn't worth it.
I agree. If they had never started with it, it would have been better (they could have custom templates for the less imaginative people) and they could have spent the time on improving or adding other things.

Originally Posted by Sigi98
Originally Posted by Seraphael
I imagine Larian might opt for a hybrid Origin-system where not all companions are optional player characters.

I hope they will do exactly that.
I hope for the same, but there would probably need to be some "good" playable characters to add to what we have for those who play that way.

Joined: Jun 2019
member
Offline
member
Joined: Jun 2019
Originally Posted by Sigi98
and if so, will we be able to play him 'evil'?

HELL NO. Clearly you are unfamiliar with the character so let me be the next, if not the first to tell you: Minsc cannot, and never will be evil in any shape or form, it is a major betrayal to his personality. He prides himself on fighting evil.

Joined: Feb 2020
Location: Belgium
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Feb 2020
Location: Belgium
Originally Posted by BladeDancer
Originally Posted by Sigi98
and if so, will we be able to play him 'evil'?

HELL NO. Clearly you are unfamiliar with the character so let me be the next, if not the first to tell you: Minsc cannot, and never will be evil in any shape or form, it is a major betrayal to his personality. He prides himself on fighting evil.

Yeah but you know, it was a long time ago and now he probably has a tadpole in his head. Tadpole's influence can explain everything !

Joined: Oct 2020
S
Sigi98 Offline OP
enthusiast
OP Offline
enthusiast
S
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by BladeDancer
Originally Posted by Sigi98
and if so, will we be able to play him 'evil'?

HELL NO. Clearly you are unfamiliar with the character so let me be the next, if not the first to tell you: Minsc cannot, and never will be evil in any shape or form, it is a major betrayal to his personality. He prides himself on fighting evil.

I am well aware that he will never be evil, and my question was only 'will we be able to play him evil?'. I am actually very much against being able to play him 'evil', as much as I am against being able to play Astarion or Laezel as 'good'.

Joined: May 2021
Location: Helsinki
stranger
Offline
stranger
Joined: May 2021
Location: Helsinki
Do we even know that Minsc is going to be a permanent companion? I thought he is going to make a cameo appearance, similar to Drizzt did in BG1 and 2.

Page 2 of 3 1 2 3

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