Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - General Explicit decapitations and Disney squirrels

Ironic that you mention Fallout here, because Larian writing is very close to Fallout 2. Fallout 2 world was zany and whimsical, it was literally a parody with dark undertones that's why silly jokes worked there. Same with BG3. That's why these worlds are immersive, while BG 1 and 2 felt extremely cringy with all the out of place stuff you encountered.

Zany and whimsical are not necessarily the benchmarks of an immersive game. What's immersive about a game world without a day/night cycle and no weather? Where there is no true means o measure time even though the main quest is literally a race against time? Where the map is like a railroaded theme park with everything a short walk away? Where magical way portals are liberally scattered around and yet nobody else in the game world seems to use? It's all so incoherent.

I think that is a good comparison - Fallout1 had well balanced tone for the most part with most (not all!) humour still supporting the story. Fallout2 definitely lost balance and got drowned in silly references. That’s what I remember of it at least, didn’t replay it nearly as much as Fallout1.

Fallout1>fallout2

I agree on the time issue in BG3, but not that the case is so clear cut as you make it. Some game mechanics are better in the original BG (e.g. time flow), some are worse (e.g. character reactivity or plot flexibility). For example, a big immersion-breaking moments for me was in BG2, when I've realized npcs didn't react to my werewolf-shifted druid. And another one was when my character got killed by Arkanis Gath, simply because I've made a choice which apparently wasn't approved by the writers.

Gosh. Fallout's writing and world-building is the complete opposite of Larian's. Whenever there is humor (parody/criticism) in Fallout, there is tragedy/depression/sadness (FO2 and FNV included). Meanwhile, Larian's games are just pure silliness. Again, completely different prevailing tones.

BG3 dark undertones? Like the Aunt May Rag? The car salesman Raphael? The whining jester vampire spawn? The dumb wizard companion that always states the obvious? The party of tadpoles? Or the skeleton puppy that conveniently ressurects all and travels with you through dungeons? I cannot think of a more unimmersive game in CRPG history. Oh wait, DOS2 was worse.

Like Mol, a sociopathic thiefling child who literally sends other kids on suicide missions just to steal stuff, she and her followers will grow up to be hardcore criminals and helping refugees means she will reach Baldur's Gates and will become part of the criminal underground there. Like Wyll, who wants to be a hero simply because of his own pride but will torture an innocent prisoner to fulfill his own selfish goals. Like gnome slaves in Grymforge who are actually terrorists who want to blow up Baldur's Gates to further their political agenda.


Ironic that's it coming from a person with jon irenicus avatar, a one-dimensional Bond-style evil scientist, who's only motivations are unlimited powah and revenge. At least Sarevok was presented in a way that made him look actually smart with his Baldur's Gates machinations and the way he manipulated the PC and people around him. Irenicus is supposed to be smart simply because he has evil labs to do his evil magical science, yet he has a personality of an edgy teenager.

I have to disagree on the Irenicus part. I do think his character is quite stereotypical , perhaps even cliché in the fantasy genre (just like the 'simple boy discovers he is special and on a world saving mission' is another often used cliché in fantasy) but that doesn't make him a bad character in the story or the writing, because although a cliché, it is well written. I think the issue is not between writing which relies on genre specific tropes and clichés versus writing that is fully aware of the clichés and tropes of the genre and tries to subvert them with irony or pomo meta stuff. Both can have their place and if done well lead to great masterpieces in writing, film or games. Take for instance the lord of the rings books and something like monty pythons holy grail movie, both feature fantasy - sword and sorcery - elements (as well as references to real world/historical things) but while Tolkien went great lengths in creating a believable and serious world (inventing languages and world myths such as in the Simarilion) , monty python does the inverse and subverts some of the things in the genre which have become a commonplace with irony and a lot of 'fourth wall' breaking (e.g. the whole horse riding concept, the anarcho-communist peasant, etc.). I think the issue at hand is thus not if BG3 belongs to one of these categories and which one is the best, for me the issue is that Larian tries to do both at the same time (e.g. the nautiloid intro is def. not trying to subvert fantasy cliché but rather bringing them in all their grandeur vs. the dual wielding salamis) but fails to connect this in a coherent whole. IMO I see two main reasons for this.
First of all the whole story and writing is simply incoherent and full of plot holes as well as deus ex machina solutions in terms of world-crafting (where the fuck is our camp located and why can't we simply walk there ? Our Vampire Spawn needs to be a 'special' one only to be able to exists in-game - in the day that is - lorewise ) and protagonists (what happens when a gith, a follower of Shar, a vampire-spawn dandy, and a Wizzard with a nuke in his chest sit around a campfire sounds more like the intro to a stupid dnd dad-joke than that it sets the stage for an intriguing and credible fantasy plot).

And second, I think Larian should really make a hard choice and stick to it whether they want to write BG3 primarily as a serious fantasy story with some genre subversing and tongue in cheek fourth wall breaking elements or if it wants BG3 to be a modern ironic and comedic subversion of the fantasy genre with some secondary 'serious' elements as anchor points for the story.

Both are viable in my opinion but you can't have both equally present at the same time as it just feels like listening to two different narrators - one an ancient scribe writing a lore conform account of the story from the catacombs of Spellhold, the other a modern day edgy meme-lord that grow up on rick and morty - constantly interrupting each other. So for the moment both those who want seriousness and those who prefer a lighter comedic atmosphere feel annoyed because its unclear as to which 'voice' is the main one and neither is to blame because the game's story fails to position itself as either a serious story with comedic undertones or a comedy with serious undertones. If the writing would be more straightforward in this or better at integrating these two styles and address a lot of the narrative plotholes and internal contradictions people would be less upset about it IMO.

You can literally watch kids die in this game and you went with the weakest and most questionable examples possible. Not that i believe this game stops being campy even when it tries to be dark, but come on. Gale is ten times darker than Wyll, and the goblins are a hundred times creepier than Mol (0,01 x 100 = 1).

There is one thing that comes to mind here:

The song "Stuck in the middle with you" by Stealers Wheel and how it was used in Quentin Tarantinos "Reservoir Dogs".

Classic.

Goblins are just goblins, they are evil, vile, but they just act according to the lore, according to their evil and vile customs and traditions. Mol on the other hand is a tiefling kid who manipulates and coerces other kids to become criminals. And not just orphans, Arabella has loving parents and Mol turned her into a thief and sent to steal the idol. She knew it was dangerous for Arabella, she knew that could cause troudbles for other tieflings, she didn't care. Mol is a classic manipualting sociopath, evil and narcissistic, and she is already creating her own gang by turning gullible kids into criminals. Also how is Gale more dark then Wyll?

This brings up a rather interesting issue here, when discussing "what is dark". What one person may consider "tame", another will find exceedingly offensive. People run on and on about how vulgar the last President of the US was, and yet, from my perspective, he was relatively tame, compared to some of the people that I've run with over the years. In Dragon Age 2, there's a story line where Hawke's mother is killed by a Necromancer, and reanimated. The BSN was flooded with people that were upset that Hawke was upset about that. Some of them acting as if they'd celebrate that in their own lives. So how far down the rabbit hole do they have to go to be "dark"? I find the basic premise to be pretty dark. Even with the plot armor going on, where we may not be on the same schedule others would be in our circumstance, the fact that a parasite is going to completely alter who and what I am is pretty dark.

Striking some kind of balance is going to be needed, because there are some really emotionally fragile people online, and in the world at large. There are people that sincerely believe that some profanity/nudity is oppressing them. There are people that believe that asking for a toggle to "fade to black" on sex scenes is unacceptable censorship too. So where do they strike that balance, because it's evident that nobody is going to be completely happy, no matter what. We're trying to assign objective values to a subjective topic, especially when some of what's being complained about can be skipped entirely, with 0 story consequence, such as talking to the squirrels. It's not vital to the story, and is added precisely because it will break up the seriousness of the overall situation. Even Alfira's song is about the loss of her teacher, to a pack of gnolls. It's a beautiful moment about a tragedy, from her perspective.

Except he isn't well written. Sarevok is, while Irenicus is a cartoon moustache twirling villian. For example, Irenicus is written as a genius, yet his intelligence is presented only by his prowess in magic. Many of his actions and decisions are pretty dumb (from secret underground laboratory in a city where magic is illegal while he has no political clout and it gets invaded by common thieves, he also had full control over PC twice and both times he let the PC slip like a total buffoon, all that while being a genius level wizard) and he relies on plot armor and plot powers to stay relevant. Sarevok on the other hand isn't written as an incredible genius with superpowers, yet we actually feel that he is smart and cunning with the way he manages to scheme and manipulate events on the Sword Coast.

Irenicus feels like he would make more sense as a Sorcerer than a Wizard for sure, though I don't think Sorcerers existed at the time. Someone with untold magical powers and a grudge to match, but who isn't actually a genius or anything like it. Sarevok certainly comes across as much more cunning and less reliant on plot armor.

Also, I like your avatar

I don't know, obviously Irenicus was not nobel prize worthy fiction but I found his part in the story quite convincing and even if he is a bit one dimensional at least he's an actual villain. About his lab underneath the city, never bothered me, I mean the same city that has a crashed planar sphere spaceship in the slums and conspiring vampires running the graveyard district ? Don't see Irenicus as particularly inconsistent, but maybe that's just me, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree then

Kid killed your character or something? Holy shit She's just an orphan, who's probably had it rough judging by her design, in charge of a bunch of orphans, all trying to survive the destruction of their city, and the thing with Arabella is literally just that. Kids trying to apply a simple solution to a complex problem, just so they can save their hides. Druids mean, druids evil, steal their shit and everything will be fine, kinda thing.

As for Gale, the guy has all of Wyll's delusions of grandeur, perhaps even more so, but none of his decency, as attested by the fact that he can be convinced to join the goblins whereas Wyll can't.

You like the irony card, huh?

That is why I believe some people are tone deaf, which is the case for Larian' staff most likely. Tone goes so much beyond writing and only listening to DOS2 and Fallout 2 soundtracks you can tell they have completely different writing and tone styles. All these scenes in BG3 have no emotional undertone, simply because the scenes are poorly directed, infested with bad dialogue and the overall artistic direction is lacking. Even Arabella's outcome feel meaningless, specially when Kagha's writing is so artificial. I will not even comment on Wyll, since he is the most apathetic, generic NPC we have so far.

Irenicus is a brilliant iconic character, not because of his goals, but for his stellar voice acting and solid dialogues (plus his initial dungeon which provides plenty of background). David Warner elevated the character so much, his lines felt personal and layered. The spellhold for example is masterfully conceived, shows the range of DW's acting and I posted a video some pages back. Many characters across different medias are simple, but the delivery is the most important. And that is what makes the Rag, Raphael, Astarion, Gale, Kagha so unimpressive (and those are the "evil/neutral" characters). They are infested with Disney humor and even good voice actors cannot overcome bad art direction and writing.

It really surprises me someone believes BG3 has good writing for 2021. I guess it is a lost cause, when people see reality in opposite way.

(Towards InnateEagle's comment primarily)

Perhaps, but you watch: we'll get to Baldur's Gate and Mol will have single-handed taken over the underbelly of the city and be running the kids-thieves-urchins-black-market-guild, with a half a dozen huge burly hired help figures that are unswervingly loyal to her.


I know this, because Larian are one-trick ponies when it comes to their story elements.

Hey, if that's the way it goes i'll be the hired help. I like that kid, she's the non-annoying kind of sly.

JonBon is remembered for that because there is nothing more to his character. His voice acting is great and his megalomaniac rants amusing, but he doesn't bring anything more interesting to the table. Not even an engaging conversation, as you can have with e.g. Kerghan.

There was also the "race twist"; I found that to be kind of cool.