Larian Banner: Baldur's Gate Patch 9
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 3 of 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Joined: Jun 2019
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: Jun 2019
The emphasis in act 1 is removing the tadpole. The emphasis in act 2 will be finding out why/who/what put them there in the first place. Maybe some of your companions are cool with just not having their skulls explode from the inside by a spaghetti of tentacles, while you and your selected group decide to figure out the what and why.

I really hope they don’t use the same twist that you have to fight your companions....post ceremorphesis or not....it was fun but not really that surprising in DoS2...Here it would just be a Larian trope. If they can write out the companions using some other plot device that makes sense, great.

What I really think that post is saying, is that all of your companions are found in Act 1, so when you leave, whomever you didn’t recruit is gone for good since there is no returning to that particular area.

Joined: Oct 2020
stranger
Offline
stranger
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Abits
Originally Posted by BlueFlames
Idk I did not hate it in DOS2 (was a bit surprised tho).
The other BG games had so many that you could find all over the world that I went for the ones I wanted and left the rest to their faith. I never changed the party ones I had the companions I wanted.

Only games I ever changed party was dragon age and that was mostly for story reasons.

However, I did not like the 'hiring' of companions in DOS2. Those were really boring.

I would like the option of changing companions tho or finding some new ones after act 1. Hopefully ones you don't have to 'hire' like in DOS2.

I get that but shock value is never a good enough reason to do anything, deffinatly not repeatedly (which also makes it less shocking and thus just plain pointless).


I don't think is good or bad because of chock value. What I meant was that I did not mind it because at that point I was already invested in the party I had. Besides changing your party in DOS2 was not easy. There was no campfire or menu where they wait till you show up. they were all over ford joy. It simply did not matter to me at that point in act2.

Joined: May 2019
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: May 2019
Originally Posted by BlueFlames
Originally Posted by kanisatha
Originally Posted by Khorvale
I don't think your companions could actually leave in D:OS2, they'd just fuck you over in the endgame if they didn't like you.

Oh! That's even worse! I've never played D:OS2 so this is news to me.


Honestly it's not the only game where something like that happens. NWN2 or DA2 had the same thing if they did not like you. It mostly happens if you do not invest in their personal quest or generally make choices they don't like.

Yeah but in those games you have a pretty good idea where things are headed with your companions before you get to the end-game. But it seemed, from what I was reading here, that in D:OS2 you got effectively blindsided. But regardless, it's a tangent and not really to the point of the thread. smile

Joined: Aug 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Aug 2020
Guys, I highly doubt that removing the tadpoles is "that easy".

My bet is... we won't get it removed until the end. Like look at Astarion's quest - he wants to kill Cazador, how could he possibly accomplish that without the tadpole in his head? And it's so damn clear that once we are in the city of Baldur's Gate that we will actually get to resolve that problem for our little vampire friend, Shadowheart also has something to do in the city, also what happens to Gale if we leave him behind? Especially considering his little personal problem.... Not every companion quest is as intrinsically tied to the tadpoles, like I said. You guys just think too simple. Don't take it as an insult either, please. There are all these little breadcrumbs spread all over the place that removing OUR specific tadpoles is gonna be real hard. To me it's at least clear that Larian is trying to step away from their own cliches. I could be wrong of course, but something tells me... that we just got to wait.

Joined: Oct 2020
T
addict
Offline
addict
T
Joined: Oct 2020
This is a neutral one for me. I'm going to tend to only a set party anyway. This is just going to eliminate the guilt I feel over leaving them waiting perpetually at camp.

Joined: Oct 2020
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Oct 2020
I really, really don't like this and I've commented on it a couple of times already. Limitations to party should come from story reasons (like disagreements etc.), not handwaved "rocks fall, everyone dies" or the like. There are so many problems to this approach.

Joined: Oct 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Oct 2020
Yeah, my prediction is . . . tadpoles definitely not coming out at the end of Act 1.

Joined: Oct 2020
stranger
Offline
stranger
Joined: Oct 2020
I was fine with this in Divinity 2, because you can choose the class of every companion when you meet them and everyone stays really customizable until the end so you can balance your party however you wanted, but I'll be honest this is a terrible fucking idea for Baldur's Gate 3 with characters having predetermined classes. I can't get rid of Shadowheart at the end of Act 1 and be without a healer for the rest of the game, but I don't necessarily always need her with me all the time. If I fight a boss that uses antimagic field or is resistant to nonmagical attacks, I want to be able to switch out the characters rendered useless by the boss' abilities. I want to do sidequests with the characters I don't always use. I want to learn more about Wyll despite playing a warlock and not really having a use for him in my active party. This is an awful choice and I really hope Larian changes their mind about this.

Joined: Oct 2020
A
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
A
Joined: Oct 2020
If the party splits...
Then what happens with the characters not following the others? If it makes sense for all of them to pursue a similar path because of their condition then why split?
All of the charcters we have met so far suffer from the same 'condition'. If it made sense to team up in the first place then I do not see why the group should split


I sometimes use thought experiments. I don't necessarily believe in every idea I post for discussion on this forum
Joined: Oct 2020
member
Offline
member
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Uncle Lester
I really, really don't like this and I've commented on it a couple of times already. Limitations to party should come from story reasons (like disagreements etc.), not handwaved "rocks fall, everyone dies" or the like. There are so many problems to this approach.


True, but it does solve one big problem in game design. It can eliminate running across quest triggers for companions you don't have in your party. They just don't exist, so you don't get into that mode where "Oh, I have to trade this one out for a while and pick up that other one to do this side quest."

That also means you're not seeing all the content in the game in one playthrough, but personally I don't mind. It's like the branching storyline in Witcher 2; you have to commit to one branch and will only see the alternate reality with a second play-through. I'd rather have this, than run across side quests I can't do because I don't have the right companions in my party.

Joined: Jul 2009
I
old hand
Offline
old hand
I
Joined: Jul 2009
If this is true then I wonder if Larian will really add more companions. There are only so many NPCs you can introduce in a single act.

Joined: Oct 2020
A
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
A
Joined: Oct 2020
They can set up a new camp and introduce new companions in Act 2. Someone not suffering from the 'condition' of the others would be interesting. They have all the time in the multiverse while the others have more urgent needs.
The most important thing seems to be that there is a reason for reducing party size. The fact that the whole Mindflayer problem creates a strong shared goal makes a split hard to explain.


I sometimes use thought experiments. I don't necessarily believe in every idea I post for discussion on this forum
Joined: Mar 2020
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Mar 2020
Originally Posted by macadami
The emphasis in act 1 is removing the tadpole. The emphasis in act 2 will be finding out why/who/what put them there in the first place. Maybe some of your companions are cool with just not having their skulls explode from the inside by a spaghetti of tentacles, while you and your selected group decide to figure out the what and why.

I really hope they don’t use the same twist that you have to fight your companions....post ceremorphesis or not....it was fun but not really that surprising in DoS2...Here it would just be a Larian trope. If they can write out the companions using some other plot device that makes sense, great.

What I really think that post is saying, is that all of your companions are found in Act 1, so when you leave, whomever you didn’t recruit is gone for good since there is no returning to that particular area.

Not to dwell on it too much, but I think in divinity original sin 2 it was very poorly executed, but the idea behind it was great and made sense with the narrative. here there is zero sense to it. unless we will discover there is a competition between True souls on some prize (which may be interesting and fitting with the Baldur's Gate saga, but still kinda lame after dos 2).


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
member
Offline
member
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Abits
Originally Posted by macadami
The emphasis in act 1 is removing the tadpole. The emphasis in act 2 will be finding out why/who/what put them there in the first place. Maybe some of your companions are cool with just not having their skulls explode from the inside by a spaghetti of tentacles, while you and your selected group decide to figure out the what and why.

I really hope they don’t use the same twist that you have to fight your companions....post ceremorphesis or not....it was fun but not really that surprising in DoS2...Here it would just be a Larian trope. If they can write out the companions using some other plot device that makes sense, great.

What I really think that post is saying, is that all of your companions are found in Act 1, so when you leave, whomever you didn’t recruit is gone for good since there is no returning to that particular area.

Not to dwell on it too much, but I think in divinity original sin 2 it was very poorly executed, but the idea behind it was great and made sense with the narrative. here there is zero sense to it. unless we will discover there is a competition between True souls on some prize (which may be interesting and fitting with the Baldur's Gate saga, but still kinda lame after dos 2).


You get a set of glowing eyes and flying triangle then you can subjugate the other realms and they have to call you a god.

Joined: Oct 2020
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: Oct 2020
yeah forceing us to "Commit" seems lame, differant classes can fill differant roles. I'm already party swapping, my play through is on a fighter, and one time when I knew I'd be satging a "direct assault" I left astaeron at home to take Laz'eal as another fighter, because I knew her durability would be the better choice.

Joined: Oct 2020
member
Offline
member
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Nicottia
Guys, I highly doubt that removing the tadpoles is "that easy".

My bet is... we won't get it removed until the end. Like look at Astarion's quest - he wants to kill Cazador, how could he possibly accomplish that without the tadpole in his head? And it's so damn clear that once we are in the city of Baldur's Gate that we will actually get to resolve that problem for our little vampire friend, Shadowheart also has something to do in the city, also what happens to Gale if we leave him behind? Especially considering his little personal problem.... Not every companion quest is as intrinsically tied to the tadpoles, like I said. You guys just think too simple. Don't take it as an insult either, please. There are all these little breadcrumbs spread all over the place that removing OUR specific tadpoles is gonna be real hard. To me it's at least clear that Larian is trying to step away from their own cliches. I could be wrong of course, but something tells me... that we just got to wait.


You're likely right, all the avenues for healing that we are provided with in EA turns out to be wild goose chases, after all. Party is going to be Sourcerers-eh I mean...Tadpolers? until the end-game

Last edited by Khorvale; 15/10/20 12:02 PM.
Joined: Aug 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Aug 2020
Originally Posted by Khorvale
You're likely right, all the avenues for healing that we are provided with in EA turns out to be wild goose chases, after all. Party is going to be Sourcerers-eh I mean...Tadpolers? until the end-game


To me, the entire story of BG3 really stinks of BG2's Bhaals essence, or at least taking heavy inspirations from that... so it's the reason why I deducted that the resolution of the tadpole problem won't come until very late.. what makes me wonder though is: if people not using the powers at all will get some recognition for their restraint in the end? And how losing access to some of our companions will play out? It has to make some logical sense that I'm really not seeing as of now.

For example - in BG1/2, if your reputation was too high or too low, some companions would ditch you, or get so annoyed with you they'd attack you and obviously perish. You could let Viconia get slaughtered by the Flaming Fist enforcer, in BG2 you could let her die to the angry mob, like there were so many logical permutations of losing companions permanently. Hell,even in our BG3 EA you could straight up murder some of our current companions upon meeting them, or you could yeet them out of the group/camp by simply being angry that they kept some nasty secrets from you. For example: Astarion's vampirism, Shadow's Shar beliefs, Gale's timebomb, Wyll will get mad at us helping gobbos + we can be nasty about the source of his warlock powers, haven't really found a way to yeet Lae'zel once you recruit her tho... well, okay, there is a way if you use the tadpole powers.

Hmm, actually, now that I think of the logic behind losing some of our companions... the ones we didn't commit to... well, onboard of the nautiloid there was this pod with Kelly Chambers (Mass Effect 2 reference - but that chick does look a lot like Kelly..) going through an instant ceremorphosis upon the use of the lever... and since all the breadcrumbs lead to the Moonrise Towers being the seat of who/whatever is responsible for our tadpoles being dormant, maaaaaaaaaaybe, and it's a big stretch, but maybe that thing (let's call it the Absolute, since it's how it's referred to in the game) will be so displeased with us not submitting to their will that they lash out at us and do an instant ceremorphosis on those who aren't in our current party? Maybe I am reading too much into this, I dunno. Maybe I am entirely wrong and we get to lose the taddies at the end of act 1. Also, I like the term 'tadpolers'. laugh

Joined: Mar 2020
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Mar 2020
Originally Posted by Nicottia
Originally Posted by Khorvale
You're likely right, all the avenues for healing that we are provided with in EA turns out to be wild goose chases, after all. Party is going to be Sourcerers-eh I mean...Tadpolers? until the end-game


To me, the entire story of BG3 really stinks of BG2's Bhaals essence, or at least taking heavy inspirations from that... so it's the reason why I deducted that the resolution of the tadpole problem won't come until very late.. what makes me wonder though is: if people not using the powers at all will get some recognition for their restraint in the end? And how losing access to some of our companions will play out? It has to make some logical sense that I'm really not seeing as of now.

For example - in BG1/2, if your reputation was too high or too low, some companions would ditch you, or get so annoyed with you they'd attack you and obviously perish. You could let Viconia get slaughtered by the Flaming Fist enforcer, in BG2 you could let her die to the angry mob, like there were so many logical permutations of losing companions permanently. Hell,even in our BG3 EA you could straight up murder some of our current companions upon meeting them, or you could yeet them out of the group/camp by simply being angry that they kept some nasty secrets from you. For example: Astarion's vampirism, Shadow's Shar beliefs, Gale's timebomb, Wyll will get mad at us helping gobbos + we can be nasty about the source of his warlock powers, haven't really found a way to yeet Lae'zel once you recruit her tho... well, okay, there is a way if you use the tadpole powers.

Hmm, actually, now that I think of the logic behind losing some of our companions... the ones we didn't commit to... well, onboard of the nautiloid there was this pod with Kelly Chambers (Mass Effect 2 reference - but that chick does look a lot like Kelly..) going through an instant ceremorphosis upon the use of the lever... and since all the breadcrumbs lead to the Moonrise Towers being the seat of who/whatever is responsible for our tadpoles being dormant, maaaaaaaaaaybe, and it's a big stretch, but maybe that thing (let's call it the Absolute, since it's how it's referred to in the game) will be so displeased with us not submitting to their will that they lash out at us and do an instant ceremorphosis on those who aren't in our current party? Maybe I am reading too much into this, I dunno. Maybe I am entirely wrong and we get to lose the taddies at the end of act 1. Also, I like the term 'tadpolers'. laugh

I get what you are saying and it's not even a terrible story bit, the problem is with how cheep and arbitrary it is, not to mention a repeat of the terrible choice from dos2. It is just bad writing barely concealing a bad game design choice. Larian just arbitrarily decided they don't want you to have more than X companions ( I really don't get why. It's such a silly decision to invest so much in so many companions only to get rid of them after third of the game) so they pull some bullshit story reasons for it. Same old same old.


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
N
member
Offline
member
N
Joined: Oct 2020
hey all! - new here and been reading thru the forum discussions. i had posted the below in another similar thread but wanted to also add those thoughts here for consideration...

'having your available origin companions 'lock' after a certain point in of itself i dont necessarily think is a bad thing, i just dont think the way larian is planning on implementing it is the best approach ie. locking in the party at the end of Act 1

(as an aside - i also dont think im a fan of 'act maps' - i would like being able to travel back to the druid grove or ruins after i have progressed the story a bit if i missed somethings initially, in the og bg among the seven chapters you could explore the world as you wanted [solo, or with any number of party slots filled, including 4/6 or 6/6] with some time sensitive plot points true, but overall you could make and take the story at your own pace, further cementing it as a story about your pc. having act maps seems just another odd system design limiting character choice and agency - unless there is a strong story/plot element, which frankly, im not really getting with the ea play so far as (spoilers) it seems you either decimate the druids or goblins and go from there but i may be mistaken. while i think the tadpole plot is a interesting dynamic to explore, i dont necessarily feel all that special if all my recruitable act 1 companions and multiple other npcs also have the tadpoles and makes me see the pc currently just as just another guy. furthermore, and maybe i may just not have run into this yet in ea, but if we are so concerned about this tadpole eating our brain why are we able to cheese long rests?...just some tangential rambling)

if they still want to lock the companions i actually think larian would be better served implementing a party lock later on during the story as the first act seems too soon in the narrative in that we wont be able to really explore these origin characters larian spent so much time/resources to create to make an informed decision as to what we want our party to be like for the remaining acts, especially when it sounds like the origin stories really wont be explored until we get to BG. Personally, i think for inspiration larian should look more towards how character choice impacted the party and gameplay as it was done in ME/ME2 or some other rpgs (currently locking after Act1 feels very dos2 - hesitant to say that, bc while i enjoyed dos2 i felt that feature was one of the weaker points).

idk if this is taboo to talk about, but specifically for ME/ME2, you were given the chance to learn and work more with your companions (while also recruiting a good number of them over the course of the whole game) to build that rapport that would give more weight/impact to tough decisions you made more towards the ends of the game. also, i think its just another odd game decision to lock your origin companions so early when larian expounds on how much effort/resources are put into creating these characters only for us to essentially lock us out part of the story early on - idk, seems like not the best use of resources, but thats just my interpretation. and while i understand some ppl may say its for replayability, i just dont see that connection as you could still choose to hold off on any origin character content you didnt want to experience until future playthroughs with out mandating that players have to essentially opt out of certain gameplay. and frankly if i want to do another playthrough id say is more bc i want to fire up a new player character and that trying new origin companion content should just be supplemental to a new player character play through at that point, but i also think that the concept of an origin character in of itself doesnt really mesh well with a bg game where the player created character is supposed to shine as the star. to add to that, i dont necessarily feel all that connected to these origin characters when they just sit back and let a mind flayer eat my brain, but thats another topical discussion (and for those of you who say that you didnt have a pc in ME you had shep, while true, it was also your own shep whose backstory, gender, look, and decisions you decided on during the game. added benefit that shep had their own VO also makes me wish this was a feature implemented in bg3 - kinda a let down to almost never hear the pc's actually voice selection during dialogue)

tbh, the more i play the more i scratch my head on how the systems in this bg game seem to limit player agency/choice more than give us options (ie limiting the party after act1/no optional party size, limitations in character creation options - ex. full customization options regardless & y no alignment? [unless your a cleric?? and i cant be an evil elven cleric of the archeart that pulls some Altmer elder scrolls inspiration?], no current choice to roll for stats or selecting standard array/point buy. optional first level feat, the option to just leave or attack for every dialogue encounter, choosing starting equipment - all these would increase player choice, and i get some of these will likely be covered by mods, but i think letting larian know there is a demand/market for such functions will only work to improve the game)

just my thoughts - thx!'

Joined: Aug 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Aug 2020
Originally Posted by Abits
I get what you are saying and it's not even a terrible story bit, the problem is with how cheep and arbitrary it is, not to mention a repeat of the terrible choice from dos2. It is just bad writing barely concealing a bad game design choice. Larian just arbitrarily decided they don't want you to have more than X companions ( I really don't get why. It's such a silly decision to invest so much in so many companions only to get rid of them after third of the game) so they pull some bullshit story reasons for it. Same old same old.


Yes, I agree. I also want to keep them all and don't get these design decisions really. All I was doing was pure speculation, I also hated that you lose companions in DOS2 as well and how it was executed, bad game design. And I agree, it's cheap and arbitrary. Just like you, I see absolutely no reason to kill off nearly half of our group in some weird catastrophe. Like I want Larian to be original in their writing, to not repeat the same tropes that they love to do.. like for example: starting stranded on a beach after the ''ship'' got ''wrecked'', like literally it's the beginning of all their modern games published in the last 10 years, Dos1? Start on a beach, Dos2? Beach again. BG3? Oh wait, yea, totally a beach again. I get it, it's their 'new signature' just like the Elder Scrolls series always start with you being a prisoner, at least since Morrowind (or was already in Daggerfall? Never played the first 2 TES games so I don't know and can't be arsed googling it). And I'm hoping Larian will break their tendencies in story writing, take a risk basically, instead of sitting in their 'comfort zone'.

Last edited by Nicottia; 15/10/20 05:29 PM.
Page 3 of 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Moderated by  Dom_Larian, Freddo, vometia 

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