Larian Banner
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 4 of 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Joined: Oct 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Bossk_Hogg

"These characters are poorly written" isnt a fact, and isnt even an argument. Plus you'll just whine about ad hominem, incorrectly say everything you cant counter is a fallacy, and ignore the substance of any challenge. Its what you "debate me you coward" types always do. So, keep typing up long responses that will amount to nothing.

Oh dear little man, you are not helping your case. Are you aware that this thread has more than one page and that there was discussion before you loudly burst in to measure the length of your member? I would have tried to conceal mine if it was so frail and lackluster. Go play somewhere else.

Originally Posted by robertthebard
Originally Posted by robertthebard
Originally Posted by Argonaut

Origin characters are bad. They are poorly designed, poorly written and poorly thought out. You can find reasons for this all over the forums. They where bad in DivOS2 but in BG3 they are absolutely trash tier.

Are you basing this on your inability to follow a narrative, or your inability to pick up on subtext?

I'm basing it on your inability to play the game without savescumming.


Citations needed. Oh, my bad, I mean, provide some evidence for my inability to play the game w/out save scumming.

You show me yours I'll show you mine baby.

Last edited by Argonaut; 20/10/20 04:58 PM.

I am here to discuss a video game. Please do not try to rope me into anything other than that. Thank you.
Joined: Mar 2020
veteran
Online Content
veteran
Joined: Mar 2020
Originally Posted by Nicottia
Originally Posted by Abits
Not what I meant. What I meant was, how many times the story had to stop because of your companions? I can think of two small things that happened with shadowheart, Wyll and the goblins, and Layzel with the gith. But other than that, for most of the game they have no major affect of what's actually going on


So you want specific encounters were companions take over the conversation? Fine.

Astarion with the Gur monster hunter, if you don't let Astarion kill him, Astarion will get big mad at you, 99% chance that encounter will turn violent regardless (if you refuse to kill that Gur guy, high chance you might end up fighting Astarion instead). Then there is Lae with her githyanki patrol, that scene plays out entirely differently if you have her with you or sitting in a camp. Shadowheart and her purple stuff highjacking some scenes, her being big mad at you for daring to open that Selunite cache at the owlbear cave. Wyll being Wyll at the goboo camp, making nearly all encounters deadly, cause of the way he trashtalks 'em, like with the priestess Gut he's like 'oh, let's kill her!' and you can either tell him to cool down and interrogate her (will make him big mad at you) or kill her cause a big chain fight. Same goes for all the globlin leaders, it would be nice if he let us ask questions first and then kill them. Find out what the absolute is and what it wants with us. And I'm sure there is more.

All true but all of these (with perhaps the gith encounter as the only exception) are not really big part of the story and are very similar to companions quests in other games. They are more extensive, but I think it's a plus rather than a minus. My only real issue is with Wyll's case, that gave me serious Dos2 vibes. It wasn't as bad as in dos 2 (let me remind you - you meet the dreamer and than the Red Prince not only takes over, you don't even hear what they Re talking about and just stand like a dofus until they are done). Still, I think, again, that the problem here is with event flags. The game should accommodate the fact that you are the main character better, and let you more choices in these cases.

Last edited by Abits; 20/10/20 04:36 PM.

Larian's Biggest Oversight, what to do about it, and My personal review of BG3 EA
"74.85% of you stood with the Tieflings, and 25.15% of you sided with Minthara. Good outweighs evil, it seems."
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Rugby, UK
Cleric of Innuendo
Offline
Cleric of Innuendo
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Rugby, UK
I'm happy for my companions to be the reason for conversation and side-quests. The more they are meaningfully involved, the better.

Joined: Aug 2020
member
Offline
member
Joined: Aug 2020
Originally Posted by Abits
All true but all of these (with perhaps the gith encounter as the only exception) are not really big part of the story and are very similar to companions quests in other games. They are more extensive, but I think it's a plus rather than a minus. My only real issue is with Wyll's case, that gave me serious Dos2 vibes. It wasn't as bad as in dos 2 (let me remind you - you meet the dreamer and than the Red Prince not only takes over, you don't even hear what they Re talking about and just stand like a dofus until they are done). Still, I think, again, that the problem here is with event flags. The game should accommodate the fact that you are the main character better, and let you more choices in these cases.


Like I don't mind them having their own little tangents and stories. What I mind is that our PC doesn't under any circumstance interfere in any meaningful way - like, you either have a) yes, kill them and b) no, let them live, where are the other options? Like 'let's question/torture this mofo' where our chosen backstory could play a part in it. For example - a criminal could say, 'let's torture them, cut off their fingers one by one, get more info out of them' meanwhile an acolyte of a good god would be like 'let's do it quick and end their suffering' (if you choose to question and then kill someone). There are so many ways our PC could meaningfully interject aside from: yes or no (and sometimes the very rare maybe).

And since our companions are always supposed to be watching us and judging us, where are their little interjections for when we do something they wholeheartedly disagree with? Like you see that they 'approve'/'disapprove' but it would be nice if they actually said something meaningful that would point as to why that is. Like as of now, at best, they throw some snarky one liners at you.

Last edited by Nicottia; 20/10/20 04:57 PM.
Joined: Mar 2020
veteran
Online Content
veteran
Joined: Mar 2020
Originally Posted by Nicottia
Originally Posted by Abits
All true but all of these (with perhaps the gith encounter as the only exception) are not really big part of the story and are very similar to companions quests in other games. They are more extensive, but I think it's a plus rather than a minus. My only real issue is with Wyll's case, that gave me serious Dos2 vibes. It wasn't as bad as in dos 2 (let me remind you - you meet the dreamer and than the Red Prince not only takes over, you don't even hear what they Re talking about and just stand like a dofus until they are done). Still, I think, again, that the problem here is with event flags. The game should accommodate the fact that you are the main character better, and let you more choices in these cases.


Like I don't mind them having their own little tangents and stories. What I mind is that our PC doesn't under any circumstance interfere in any meaningful way - like, you either have a) yes, kill them and b) no, let them live, where are the other options? Like 'let's question/torture this mofo' where our chosen backstory could play a part in it. For example - a criminal could say, 'let's torture them, cut off their fingers one by one, get more info out of them' meanwhile an acolyte of a good god would be like 'let's do it quick and end their suffering' (if you choose to question and then kill someone). There are so many ways our PC could meaningfully interject aside from: yes or no (and sometimes the very rare maybe).

And since our companions are always supposed to be watching us and judging us, where are their little interjections for when we do something they wholeheartedly disagree with? Like you see that they 'approve'/'disapprove' but it would be nice if they actually said something meaningful that would point as to why that is. Like as of now, at best, they throw some snarky one liners at you.

I agree about player choice in dialogue. Not only there is too few of them, the game actively misleading you into thinking there are more options than what you actually have. If you have three dialogue options that lead to the same result, it's just deceptive and lame. But I don't think it's related to the companions, it's just poor dialogue writing


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
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: Oct 2020
Honestly guys, maybe engaging with the dude who is churning out 70 posts a day isn't going to get you anywhere.

Originally Posted by Nicottia
Like I don't mind them having their own little tangents and stories. What I mind is that our PC doesn't under any circumstance interfere in any meaningful way - like, you either have a) yes, kill them and b) no, let them live, where are the other options? Like 'let's question/torture this mofo' where our chosen backstory could play a part in it. For example - a criminal could say, 'let's torture them, cut off their fingers one by one, get more info out of them' meanwhile an acolyte of a good god would be like 'let's do it quick and end their suffering' (if you choose to question and then kill someone). There are so many ways our PC could meaningfully interject aside from: yes or no (and sometimes the very rare maybe).


Really don't know if I want writing cycles spent on giving us brutal torture/mutilation scenes for each companion. I agree that some of it's a little stiff, like with Shadowheart and
the artefact
but I'm not sure if that's more just a lack of scenes or what. If you pickpocket it you can't question her about it more either.

Last edited by Worm; 20/10/20 05:31 PM.
Joined: Oct 2020
T
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
T
Joined: Oct 2020
Basically, there's two different, and related issues with the companions.

One is related to the small number of companions, the small party size and the current lack of any respec ability or multiclassing. This really limits flexibility. For example, if you do not play as a fighter (or maybe a ranger) you will pretty much have to bring Lae'zel along, whether you like her as a player, and regardless of whether your character would realistically be willing to travel with her. This is particularly acute because three of the five companions are basically evil, and the other two are not exactly good. And Larian (arguably wisely) decided to not gamify approval with gifts, meaning it's genuinely hard to keep the evil characters happy if you make good decisions. This should be solved eventually to some degree - though hopefully we will ultimately get more than 8 NPCs.

The second is related to the writing of the characters. I don't agree that they "need to be nicer." However, the companions are weird, particularly if you (as most people do) play a custom character rather than an origin. The companions are extremely overwritten in terms of their backstory - not only as companions, but as potential origin stories for the PC. I always look to Dragon Age:: Origins as an example that got things right here, insofar as you actually play your prologue, giving you a backstory, but giving you some agency within that backstory. But in general, there's just...too much...in the background of most of the characters for level 1 adventurers. Occasional banter while adventuring and boning aside, they also don't interact with one another very much. Often there's literally nothing to say to certain companions until you advance their personal quest. This is a problem, because it make the companions not feel like people, but like questlines/stories awkwardly ported into the game.

I also feel like while the backstories are incredibly fleshed out, the actual characters motivations are relatively opaque. Part of this is the weird decision on the part of Larian to make every companion a mystery box - which doesn't open for every companion in every runthrough. Some level of this is fine, but it also means unless you pay close attention to what a character approves and disapproves of, you don't really understand their worldview.

Finally, although the origins are quite...involved...they are also random - at least so far. You can generally go one of two ways with companion backstories. One is to have companions who are relatively shallow - like say in the BG series. Another example is characters who have a deep backstory which is tied into the main plot. Planescape: Torment is a good example here. If you have a deep backstory but it seems to be sort of random within the setting, you end up with...well...Fenris from Dragon Age 2, a character who just seems ported from a different game.

Joined: Sep 2017
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Sep 2017
A reminder after reading through the past few pages, for everyone to remain civil, and to remember that someone else's opinion isn't inherently bad if it differs to yours, and it's not a problem to have different opinions. Don't take offence by it. Life online gets a lot easier once you get comfortable with the idea that you don't have to agree with everyone else, or rather... You absolutely will not agree with everything, for as long as you surround yourself with other people.

Remember that, and act accordingly. Think before typing.


Joined: Mar 2020
veteran
Online Content
veteran
Joined: Mar 2020
Originally Posted by Telephasic
Basically, there's two different, and related issues with the companions.

One is related to the small number of companions, the small party size and the current lack of any respec ability or multiclassing. This really limits flexibility. For example, if you do not play as a fighter (or maybe a ranger) you will pretty much have to bring Lae'zel along, whether you like her as a player, and regardless of whether your character would realistically be willing to travel with her. This is particularly acute because three of the five companions are basically evil, and the other two are not exactly good. And Larian (arguably wisely) decided to not gamify approval with gifts, meaning it's genuinely hard to keep the evil characters happy if you make good decisions. This should be solved eventually to some degree - though hopefully we will ultimately get more than 8 NPCs.

The second is related to the writing of the characters. I don't agree that they "need to be nicer." However, the companions are weird, particularly if you (as most people do) play a custom character rather than an origin. The companions are extremely overwritten in terms of their backstory - not only as companions, but as potential origin stories for the PC. I always look to Dragon Age:: Origins as an example that got things right here, insofar as you actually play your prologue, giving you a backstory, but giving you some agency within that backstory. But in general, there's just...too much...in the background of most of the characters for level 1 adventurers. Occasional banter while adventuring and boning aside, they also don't interact with one another very much. Often there's literally nothing to say to certain companions until you advance their personal quest. This is a problem, because it make the companions not feel like people, but like questlines/stories awkwardly ported into the game.

I also feel like while the backstories are incredibly fleshed out, the actual characters motivations are relatively opaque. Part of this is the weird decision on the part of Larian to make every companion a mystery box - which doesn't open for every companion in every runthrough. Some level of this is fine, but it also means unless you pay close attention to what a character approves and disapproves of, you don't really understand their worldview.

Finally, although the origins are quite...involved...they are also random - at least so far. You can generally go one of two ways with companion backstories. One is to have companions who are relatively shallow - like say in the BG series. Another example is characters who have a deep backstory which is tied into the main plot. Planescape: Torment is a good example here. If you have a deep backstory but it seems to be sort of random within the setting, you end up with...well...Fenris from Dragon Age 2, a character who just seems ported from a different game.

I disagree with your first point. not with what you describe ("if you are not a fighter\ranger you have to take Lae'zel"), which is absolutely true, but the conclusions you draw from it. I think the settings of the game addresses your concern - you are in a very extreme situation, and even though you might not like each other, you need each other to survive because like it or not, you are in the same boat.

As for your second point - generally agree. I think the problem here, more than anything in the game itself, is with the marketing. if you play this game without knowing anything about it, you might discover a lot of things as the game seems to be intended. The best example is Astarion. The game builds the reveal of his true nature very slowly. first you might get small notes and might see him sneak out at night, then you find the drained boar, and then he tries to bite you and only then you are supposed to figure out he is a vampire. I think that would have worked really well if we didn't know he is a vampire for months and his picture with blood on his lips wasn't on the loading screen. stupid stupid stupid. same thing with wyll and shadowheart. to summarize, I think this is more of a pacing problem than a writing problem. we know so much about these characters from the get-go, it's just too much. If we compare it to Alistair, we don't know anything about him for (depending on how soon you reach redclif) potentially half the game. but when we do learn, there is a lot to learn, but we already got used to him, learned how he is as a character regardless of his backstory. here we have it backwards tons of backstory with very limited character.



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
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
Joined: Oct 2020
Regarding the OPs post, many of the complaints I've seen are IMO are just complaining about Larian including people who've been excluded from public sphere before as not ideal/normal/sane/moral etc. into their game. They're basically just attacks aimed at people whose likenesses, gender, sexuality and other ways of being don't fit the norm the complainers are championing. The prime example being the "ugly masculine women" -type of threads mining into the vulnerabilities and pains of others not fitting the norm, or threads destined to railroad into "straight pride" -declarations. The kinda stuff that is prevalent in just about every cRPG social network. Generally you're demanded to take this stuff at face value, which is IMO just a way to normalize these types of violence.

Having said that, its sort of nice that my problem with the female companions(as always) was that they're not mean/authoritative/independent/contributing/equal/alive enough, which probably means I'm not qualified to speak outside the "neckbeard gang" of the consumer base. My view is that, if you don't see consumer culture others are invested in, as basically progressive/ethical/unproblematic, that means you're viewed as a regressive, troll, nuts etc. Assuming the worst is also is in line with the general, often warranted, paranoia of social interactions online/everywhere. So I'm just going to assume that I'm viewed as one of "them" and reiterate (parts of) my complaint as a musings of a regressive neckbeard, or worse.

But even though what I've been saying earlier is probably all just an inverted neckbeard antics, attempting to thirst after a male fantasy (domme-of-steel) version of John Hamm the dominator(and being special at the expense of others), it seems to me the women companions still cater too much to my "neckbeard customer base" e.g by reassuringly pitting (the only) two "mean" women at each others throats and repeatedly shoehorning them into the rescuee positions. I'm pretty sure, while being genuinely appalled by "the unbearable meanness of women in BG3", everyone at the neckbeard part of the stadium likes a good chick fight where female aggressions forms a closed, mostly non-threathening loop for men that on a fantasy level highlights the inability of women to work as a team without splintering to wantonly domineering warring factions a la the Drow in the Underdark etc.

Also, I don't think Shadowheart manages to "mean" her way far enough out of the reach of outdated stereotypes. Not at least based on what I've seen in chapter 1. Shadowheart has too much of that brainwashed cultist escapee -type feel(though to be fair, everyone in the party is basically a cultist escapee treated to the same career choice as Shadowheart because of the tadpole) to actually qualify as anything other than a "new" glazzy eyed version of the "doe-eyed waify" someone mentioned previously. I'd say this is especially so, if you can as a PC either rescue, or guide back to the loving care of her abusers/exploiters/murderers later in game. Maybe this scenario plays out as some sort of unconsumable poison pill version of the previous type of relationship, but I doubt it.

Anyways, stuff like this feels like Larian isn't trying hard enough to create anything new in this regard, but are just succumbing to the impulse of trying to please the broadest customer base possible while ignoring the problems of including stuff like this. But maybe the finished project somehow makes it work. Also, I'm not saying this might not work as a production guideline economically(it most likely will), but cynical nostalgia/repetition in the guise of novelty/progress seldom works well outside the box office.

Edit:Typos etc.



Last edited by IdPreferNotTo; 20/10/20 08:43 PM.

The promise of being led to death is reason enough to follow.
Joined: Oct 2020
member
Offline
member
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Argonaut
Originally Posted by Bossk_Hogg

"These characters are poorly written" isnt a fact, and isnt even an argument. Plus you'll just whine about ad hominem, incorrectly say everything you cant counter is a fallacy, and ignore the substance of any challenge. Its what you "debate me you coward" types always do. So, keep typing up long responses that will amount to nothing.

Oh dear little man, you are not helping your case. Are you aware that this thread has more than one page and that there was discussion before you loudly burst in to measure the length of your member? I would have tried to conceal mine if it was so frail and lackluster. Go play somewhere else.

Originally Posted by robertthebard
Originally Posted by robertthebard
Originally Posted by Argonaut

Origin characters are bad. They are poorly designed, poorly written and poorly thought out. You can find reasons for this all over the forums. They where bad in DivOS2 but in BG3 they are absolutely trash tier.

Are you basing this on your inability to follow a narrative, or your inability to pick up on subtext?

I'm basing it on your inability to play the game without savescumming.


Citations needed. Oh, my bad, I mean, provide some evidence for my inability to play the game w/out save scumming.

You show me yours I'll show you mine baby.


You seem overly focused on others genitals. I mean.. if you wanna cyber, you can just ask.

Joined: Jul 2014
C
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
C
Joined: Jul 2014
I think the companions are great.

And for anyone with rose tinted glasses about BG2 companions, I would just like to remind you that (BG2 spoiler), the paladin in BG2, the paragon of virtue, never spent any time with his wife and child, and then when he found out she was having an affair, he had her executed.

Real nice guy.

Joined: Oct 2020
N
stranger
Offline
stranger
N
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Abits
Originally Posted by Telephasic

The second is related to the writing of the characters. I don't agree that they "need to be nicer." However, the companions are weird, particularly if you (as most people do) play a custom character rather than an origin. The companions are extremely overwritten in terms of their backstory - not only as companions, but as potential origin stories for the PC. I always look to Dragon Age:: Origins as an example that got things right here, insofar as you actually play your prologue, giving you a backstory, but giving you some agency within that backstory. But in general, there's just...too much...in the background of most of the characters for level 1 adventurers. Occasional banter while adventuring and boning aside, they also don't interact with one another very much. Often there's literally nothing to say to certain companions until you advance their personal quest. This is a problem, because it make the companions not feel like people, but like questlines/stories awkwardly ported into the game.

I also feel like while the backstories are incredibly fleshed out, the actual characters motivations are relatively opaque. Part of this is the weird decision on the part of Larian to make every companion a mystery box - which doesn't open for every companion in every runthrough. Some level of this is fine, but it also means unless you pay close attention to what a character approves and disapproves of, you don't really understand their worldview.

Finally, although the origins are quite...involved...they are also random - at least so far. You can generally go one of two ways with companion backstories. One is to have companions who are relatively shallow - like say in the BG series. Another example is characters who have a deep backstory which is tied into the main plot. Planescape: Torment is a good example here. If you have a deep backstory but it seems to be sort of random within the setting, you end up with...well...Fenris from Dragon Age 2, a character who just seems ported from a different game.


As for your second point - generally agree. I think the problem here, more than anything in the game itself, is with the marketing. if you play this game without knowing anything about it, you might discover a lot of things as the game seems to be intended. The best example is Astarion. The game builds the reveal of his true nature very slowly. first you might get small notes and might see him sneak out at night, then you find the drained boar, and then he tries to bite you and only then you are supposed to figure out he is a vampire. I think that would have worked really well if we didn't know he is a vampire for months and his picture with blood on his lips wasn't on the loading screen. stupid stupid stupid. same thing with wyll and shadowheart. to summarize, I think this is more of a pacing problem than a writing problem. we know so much about these characters from the get-go, it's just too much. If we compare it to Alistair, we don't know anything about him for (depending on how soon you reach redclif) potentially half the game. but when we do learn, there is a lot to learn, but we already got used to him, learned how he is as a character regardless of his backstory. here we have it backwards tons of backstory with very limited character.



I tend to disagree, and I do think there is a problem with the writing. I for one didn't follow the marketing, and, believe it or not, I didn't know Astarion was a Vampire. Or whatever was up with Wyll or Shadowheart. That aside, let's focus for a moment on Astarion. So you find him, and maybe after some sort of misunderstanding you agree that it is better to work together. We both have a bloody tadpole crawling around in our head, and we both agree that we need to remove it, and that our best chance is to work together. Fair enough up to that point.
So what does he do? He sneaks up on you one night and tries to drain your blood. No matter what he says afterwards, he has proven that he is entirely untrustworthy. Given the situation I'm in, I'd kick him from the group. I have enough problems as it is, I don't need a Vampire in my group that I cannot trust (okey, that seems to be redundant).
As for the others, Wyll and Gale are completely overdone. Their backstories do not link up with what they actually can deliver. Shadowheart and Lae'zel are better in that regard, but swing between arrogance and rudeness. I don't expect them to be particularly nice to me, but given the situatuion, and the fact that we apparently agree that we are better off as a group, I expect something more civil.
So I do have a problem with the writing. So far it seems to me that Larian was trying to outdo what they had delivered in DOS and DOS 2, but they overshot the target.

Last edited by Nyelin; 20/10/20 08:03 PM.
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Rugby, UK
Cleric of Innuendo
Offline
Cleric of Innuendo
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Rugby, UK
Do remember that Larian have already said that, aside from having to work together to find a cure, there is little chance that the group would be travelling together.

Now I am not happy with the Companions from a romance perspective, and I think they are rather over-the-top in terms of backstory and quirks, but I can completely agree that they work as a disparate group who have nothing in common aside from hosting a tadpole. If you are wondering why they are in your party, then yes, that's a point that Larian have addressed.

Joined: Oct 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Sadurian
Do remember that Larian have already said that, aside from having to work together to find a cure, there is little chance that the group would be travelling together.

Now I am not happy with the Companions from a romance perspective, and I think they are rather over-the-top in terms of backstory and quirks, but I can completely agree that they work as a disparate group who have nothing in common aside from hosting a tadpole. If you are wondering why they are in your party, then yes, that's a point that Larian have addressed.
The romance now is probably just a placeholder to give us a taste in EA.


Necromancy is just recycling...
Joined: Oct 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Nyelin


I tend to disagree, and I do think there is a problem with the writing. I for one didn't follow the marketing, and, believe it or not, I didn't know Astarion was a Vampire. Or whatever was up with Wyll or Shadowheart. That aside, let's focus for a moment on Astarion. So you find him, and maybe after some sort of misunderstanding you agree that it is better to work together. We both have a bloody tadpole crawling around in our head, and we both agree that we need to remove it, and that our best chance is to work together. Fair enough up to that point.
So what does he do? He sneaks up on you one night and tries to drain your blood. No matter what he says afterwards, he has proven that he is entirely untrustworthy. Given the situation I'm in, I'd kick him from the group. I have enough problems as it is, I don't need a Vampire in my group that I cannot trust (okey, that seems to be redundant).
As for the others, Wyll and Gale are completely overdone. Their backstories do not link up with what they actually can deliver. Shadowheart and Lae'zel are better in that regard, but swing between arrogance and rudeness. I don't expect them to be particularly nice to me, but given the situatuion, and the fact that we apparently agree that we are better off as a group, I expect something more civil.
So I do have a problem with the writing. So far it seems to me that Larian was trying to outdo what they had delivered in DOS and DOS 2, but they overshot the target.


You can actually kick him from the group.

Joined: Jul 2019
member
Offline
member
Joined: Jul 2019
I mean, I'm complaining about companions because some of them are either bugged or very poorly written or just not implemented properly yet. Shadowheart is the perfect example I've been using for many reasons, but namely that regardless of what actions you take, what you say in dialogue, what character you create, she remains completely the same in the end:
Example #1 Attempting to save her on the ship gives you one nice response that suggests she'd be friendly, but then she reverts to the exact same character as if you didn't. Example #2 Maxing approval rating and picking "appropriate" dialogue responses throughout the entire gameplay leads to the exact same opinion no matter what. To expand on that, dialogue during her Shar stuff or whenever she glows yields responses that suggests she likes the PC, is friendly towards PC, shares almost the same opinions on things, etc., but then she reverts back to the same old Shadowheart and says, "You're not the company I'd keep." When you progress to the celebration, you're able to get cozy with her and she even says "You should have made a move sooner", but when? When she was telling you to screw off or that you're not someone she'd associate with? Then you spend the whole night talking and kiss, etc. only for her to, the next morning, say "That won't ever happen again" or continue to react to the PC in the EXACT same way.

Her build and stats are poorly done, there's not much to build upon with her yet, her attitude sucks and you can't build upon that at all, etc. Then the dice roll mechanic during dialogue only compounds the issues.

There's similar issues with all the companions with the best one thus far for development, response to choices, etc. seeming to be Gale. Then there's the limited number of companions with some merely expressing a desire for more than 8 because the 8 that we know of aren't up anyone's ally, but that's personal preference.

Joined: Mar 2020
veteran
Online Content
veteran
Joined: Mar 2020
Originally Posted by Nyelin
Originally Posted by Abits
Originally Posted by Telephasic

The second is related to the writing of the characters. I don't agree that they "need to be nicer." However, the companions are weird, particularly if you (as most people do) play a custom character rather than an origin. The companions are extremely overwritten in terms of their backstory - not only as companions, but as potential origin stories for the PC. I always look to Dragon Age:: Origins as an example that got things right here, insofar as you actually play your prologue, giving you a backstory, but giving you some agency within that backstory. But in general, there's just...too much...in the background of most of the characters for level 1 adventurers. Occasional banter while adventuring and boning aside, they also don't interact with one another very much. Often there's literally nothing to say to certain companions until you advance their personal quest. This is a problem, because it make the companions not feel like people, but like questlines/stories awkwardly ported into the game.

I also feel like while the backstories are incredibly fleshed out, the actual characters motivations are relatively opaque. Part of this is the weird decision on the part of Larian to make every companion a mystery box - which doesn't open for every companion in every runthrough. Some level of this is fine, but it also means unless you pay close attention to what a character approves and disapproves of, you don't really understand their worldview.

Finally, although the origins are quite...involved...they are also random - at least so far. You can generally go one of two ways with companion backstories. One is to have companions who are relatively shallow - like say in the BG series. Another example is characters who have a deep backstory which is tied into the main plot. Planescape: Torment is a good example here. If you have a deep backstory but it seems to be sort of random within the setting, you end up with...well...Fenris from Dragon Age 2, a character who just seems ported from a different game.


As for your second point - generally agree. I think the problem here, more than anything in the game itself, is with the marketing. if you play this game without knowing anything about it, you might discover a lot of things as the game seems to be intended. The best example is Astarion. The game builds the reveal of his true nature very slowly. first you might get small notes and might see him sneak out at night, then you find the drained boar, and then he tries to bite you and only then you are supposed to figure out he is a vampire. I think that would have worked really well if we didn't know he is a vampire for months and his picture with blood on his lips wasn't on the loading screen. stupid stupid stupid. same thing with wyll and shadowheart. to summarize, I think this is more of a pacing problem than a writing problem. we know so much about these characters from the get-go, it's just too much. If we compare it to Alistair, we don't know anything about him for (depending on how soon you reach redclif) potentially half the game. but when we do learn, there is a lot to learn, but we already got used to him, learned how he is as a character regardless of his backstory. here we have it backwards tons of backstory with very limited character.



I tend to disagree, and I do think there is a problem with the writing. I for one didn't follow the marketing, and, believe it or not, I didn't know Astarion was a Vampire. Or whatever was up with Wyll or Shadowheart. That aside, let's focus for a moment on Astarion. So you find him, and maybe after some sort of misunderstanding you agree that it is better to work together. We both have a bloody tadpole crawling around in our head, and we both agree that we need to remove it, and that our best chance is to work together. Fair enough up to that point.
So what does he do? He sneaks up on you one night and tries to drain your blood. No matter what he says afterwards, he has proven that he is entirely untrustworthy. Given the situation I'm in, I'd kick him from the group. I have enough problems as it is, I don't need a Vampire in my group that I cannot trust (okey, that seems to be redundant).
As for the others, Wyll and Gale are completely overdone. Their backstories do not link up with what they actually can deliver. Shadowheart and Lae'zel are better in that regard, but swing between arrogance and rudeness. I don't expect them to be particularly nice to me, but given the situatuion, and the fact that we apparently agree that we are better off as a group, I expect something more civil.
So I do have a problem with the writing. So far it seems to me that Larian was trying to outdo what they had delivered in DOS and DOS 2, but they overshot the target.

About Astarion - okey then. maybe I trusted him since I felt I have a plot armor or maybe because I believed him, dunno. but I think it was worth it.

about the rest of them - "Their backstories do not link up with what they actually can deliver" if you mean they are not like a level 1 characters, I'm sorry but whatever man. I know a lot of people care about that but I simply don't. If that is your only problem with them, we can agree to disagree. about them being overdone - again I don't see it at all. Gale is a bit of an arrogant bastard but a likable one. Wyll is completely fine, and I didn't even get into a situation I discover much about his backstory. In most of my playthrough, he completely kept his front of a goblin sleyer hero

About manners - welcome to the wilderness I guess? some people are rude... I don't see the problem. I actually think Laezel gets a bad rep in that regard, because she is very bitchy, but also explains a lot of the lore of the gith and the mind flayers over the course of the game, rather patiently. She is not different at all from characters like Candarous ordo, she is just younger and stupider and not in a teen game. about Shadowheart - she is much like Morrigan, and I don't see much difference aside from the context in which you find her. I imagine that Morrigan with a tadpole in her head would act very similarly (and if you want to say I'm wrong just remember the time she was so paranoid she sent you to kill her dragon mother).

I don't think the companions in DOS2 were so bad for that matter, I just wish they were given more respect from the game designers and that their scenarios were more fluid and not mutually exclusive.



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
W
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
W
Joined: Oct 2020
I like the companions but feel a little sexually harassed by the male characters. Why are they always hitting on me! I mean I consider myself a pretty open minded person but give it a rest guys. I have taken to only playing with the female characters (who hate me but at least aren't constantly putting the moves on me) for this reason, with the exception of the rogue, but I never engage him in conversation anymore...

Joined: Oct 2020
member
Offline
member
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Nicottia
Originally Posted by robertthebard
Are we playing the same game? Both of my Drow have had Drow specific dialog. Maybe your version is earlier than mine, and my choices were added later? One of the lines was akin to "If you see red eyes, run", when talking to one of the Tiefling children in the Grove.

Again, however, I don't want Larian writing a backstory for my custom characters, and I'm still really amazed at how many people here seem to not only want it, but need it?


Did you even read what I wrote or just skimmed through it looking for keywords?

Ugh, I did write that the race and class do come up in dialogues. But unless you missed it, you can choose your background:

[Linked Image]

This is my main source of complaint as it never comes up in dialogue.

So it's there but unused. Totally pointless.


I think you should make your point about the backstory for custom characters in a separate thread, just so it's not lost. It is a pretty good idea that Larian hopefully adds to in the game up.

Last edited by FatePeddler; 21/10/20 12:34 AM.
Page 4 of 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

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