Larian Banner
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 5 of 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Joined: Mar 2020
member
Offline
member
Joined: Mar 2020
If you like all the companions, then enjoy.

Wyll and Gale are good company...Larian would require an outside consultant to make a good female character.

A consultant complete with decision making power.

However, based on what I have seen, I would not trust anyone at Larian to have the discernment to select a viable consultant.

Joined: Oct 2020
N
stranger
Offline
stranger
N
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by robertthebard
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.


Yep, i know. I kicked him in one playthrough because I had a shit day. The point is really that I keep him in the group for metagaming reasons: I want to see how this plays out.

Joined: Mar 2020
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Mar 2020
Most of them are people I wouldn't want to travel with normally (except Laezel. Tell me how stupid I ammmm yesssd). But when the situation is dire you take what you can get. Laezel specifically seems like very reasonable to keep since the mind flayers are her mortal enemies


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: Italy
Sharet Offline OP
member
OP Offline
member
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Italy
Originally Posted by Argonaut

No. That is the point that people who defend them feel the need to hang on to because everything else has to do with comparative quality to older games as well as written work in which case they don't even scratch the surface of professional writing or characters. People who do not like the companions, such as myself, do not like them because they are poorly written. For a large part this can be attributed to the schizophrenic nature of origin characters as having to be main characters even when they are just sidekicks. Do you know a person in real life that is so self centered and yet people love and adore them and never criticize them? Do you know someone that tries to steal the spotlight and make everything about themselves and constantly complain in real life that is fun to be around?

So you treat people at your job like dirt then? Don't be so infantile. Not only are there countless examples of how people can come together under extreme duress despite being extremely different and not behave like spoiled children. Victims of trauma also do not manifest the same response and pushing people away or taking your problems out on other people is universally considered to be in poor taste but more importantly is scientifically known to be a self destructive desire that has nothing to do with your trauma or experiences and has a lot more to do with a sense of self loathing and self destructiveness. I'm sure you have heard of Sherlock Holmes and his opioid habit? Clinical Psychiatrists and neuroscientists often describe the addiction to these extreme attitude as "seeking oblivion". I can give you examples of these kind of characters done in a multitude of different ways that are far superior including examples from older games but I've done it so many times already in the brief time that I've been on this board that I've already burned out and if you are really that interested for my take feel free to PM me.

You've never seen pictures of WWI soldiers in the trenches playing with cats or smiling or playing cards? Breaking down and being an insufferable detractor of everyone around you is not healthy and it is not something that inspires sympathy. We have to like these characters and in fact Larian is making it almost obligatory to play with them as companions. Why would they choose to write them in such a way that makes them insufferable. Completely ignoring how poorly written and one dimensional they are these characters could be written to be much more sympathetic or at least motivate you to care about them without making them mary sues that you are forced upon you. The same messages and themes could be delivered while only changing their attitude to make a far superior experience.

With all of that out of the way consider if you where in a life threatening situation of a similar nature. Let's say you suspect you have carbon monoxide poisoning. This WILL kill you slowly. Would you run away from people and every time someone tried to help you shout at them, demean them and so on or would you try to be polite and explain the situation and seek their help? Would you then try to sleep with them out of nowhere?

Written exquisitely compared to what? Even ignoring everything else I've said so far please give an example to compare them to as a basis seeing as your analysis of them and the writing is only skin deep.

Of course we want to complain. Larian decided they wanted to fill the shoes of BG with a sequel no one asked for that has no continuity and nothing to do with the previous games in the series. You better believe they've got to knock this one out of the park of they are going to make a lot of people extremely angry and alienated with them.



Dude, even if I don't share the complaining about the current companions I never called anyone "infantile" nor I presumed anything about anyone. I'll ask you to do the same.
To answer your points:

1) I don't think they are poorly written and what you are saying is that you don't find them likeable because they are too self-centred, which is exactly my point. As I said, "I can understand someone not liking the personality of a character, fair enough, but not liking it without considering the context is a weak argumentation." No one likes a "look at me, I'm important" character, the thing I think is missing from your argumentation is again, context. Of course they are self-centred at the beginning of the adventure, you are all strangers to one another and the only people you have a notion of is yourselves. You are going to talk about you and focus on your personal objectives, not asking "how was your day darling?". As the game progresses and you open up to one another, things are gonna change, in fact they change even before the end of act one, as I mentioned.

2) Do you really think the usual job environment is a good comparison with having a living parasite inside you who is going to end you at any moment? If their behaviour will stay like that for weeks or months after the discovery that the tadpole is in stasis and they are in no immediate danger then I will agree they are reacting in a poor way, but the events of the EA take place in just a couple of days after the abduction, their stress and bad reaction are more than justified. Sure, you could've wished for more positive characters capable of handling stress better, but suggesting that SH selfishness in this context is unrealistic is to be blind, in my opinion.

3) Again, me suspecting of having carbon monoxide poisoning that will kill me slowly in the real world is not the same of having a tadpole in your head who is going to rip your organs after a couple of days. In the real world, in case of poisoning, I will not be in a good mood for sure, but at least I know there are doctors who are going to reassure and take care of me, it is all another story than having a tadpole you can't get rid of and with the only known "medic" of the place missing (you find Halsin only near the end of EA). It's an RPG, people should try to imaging themselves in the world, characters and CONTEXT.

4) I don't know what kind of example do you want honestly. I find them written exquisitely because they are *believable* when you are talking to them. I can't say if their stories are well written because I know only the tip of the iceberg since we are still in EA, but I know they feel alive like few other both in the good and the bad.

5) A company doesn't create a game only because "people are asking for it", besides, the fact that there are people in this forum who have bought EA means that there are people who wanted the game. If you think a game called "BG3" doesn't deserve to be played because it has no connection (for now) with the previous title just don't play it. Of course, you can criticise some aspects of it (even I think BG story-arc should have stayed untouched and this game should have been called with another name), as I said there are a lot of good criticisms in this forum, but they must be valid, and constructive. Saying "I don't like the characters because they are rude" is a valid opinion but not a criticism. You can criticise how a character backstory is written because is inconsistent or full of cliché (for example I agree they feel all to important to be lvl one characters), but you can't criticise a character just because you don't like its *attitude* more so when said attitude is coherent with the context. You can say "I personally don't like mean character", and it will be a respectable opinion, not "I personally don't like mean character, therefore Larian has written them badly".

P.S: The subject "you" I'm using is a general "you", not a "you-you" laugh


Originally Posted by Nicottia
Argonaut, you are my hero of these forums really, I agree with about 99% of stuff you have written in most of the topics you have participated in.

Now, to add to this conversation, I think people dislike the companions cause more often than not they steal all the spotlight. I wish that Larian would drop the entire idea of origin stories, as I have said it many times before, or keep them confined to DOS games only, they have absolutely no reason hamfisting them into BG series. Period.

Hell, I don't really hate a single one of them. I understand that they are each different people caught in difficult circumstances forcing them to work together. But they do need to work on their sympathetic skills a bit more. The only one who could possibly get away being the major pain in the butt is Lae'zel, her being a githyanki and all that. She sees all the races of Faerun as inferior, and it shows. At least she's honest about that. Also, the circumstances you meet each of the companions under is pretty bit weird, Astarion being indeed a shining example among all of them. There should indeed be a way for the others you have recruited to at least REACT to him pulling a knife on us. They don't have to help, but at least react, say something. It's not that much to ask for, is it?

And speaking of our PC, Larian could implement such a simple fix for our lack of any visible backstory, well we do have backgrounds - acolyte, noble and so on. But they never come up in dialogue. I played as a seldarine drow acolyte cleric of Eilistraee on my first run, on my 2nd I went with high elven wizard noble. Now the racial and class dialogues come up often, but the 'background' never does. Never. My newest character is a drow warlock of the old ones, with the entertainer background, and I can already predict that the entertainer background will never ever come up in dialogue. I mean, is it really so hard to implement the backgrounds as some sort of backstories for our PCs? Like hell, Larian could give us 2 options even as to what you did via dialogue like it was done in POE, and people would not complain as much about our PCs being a full empty blank slate. Hell, I wouldn't complain anymore. Our PCs backstory doesn't have to as grand as the origin characters' one, but at least make it matter a little bit more.


You see, you agree with Argonaut but I find your complaint a lot more valid than his, no offence for him intended.
They need to work on their social skills? Absolutely. Does it mean they are non-believable as characters? I think not, not a bit.
Should they react more when some cutscenes occur? Absolutely, but I think this is an oversight in the script of those specific scenes because in others they respond correctly, for example SH reaction when you free Lae'zel.
Should our PC feels like having a more solid BG in order not to be outshined from the origins ones? Hard to negate, and your suggestions are more than valid.

Originally Posted by Nicottia

Do you really want me to talk about how special Gale is and how his entire backstory not only steals the spotlight of the PC, but he's so damn special that he needs a contingency plan for when he dies (what given his backstory makes sense ofc)?

The man, the legend, the second coming of Elminster and Khelben, man who is on par with the greatest wizards ever known because he was a chosen of Mystra, he made love to a goddess but clearly, his lovemaking skills weren't enough for the goddess dumped him, so he got stuck trying to woo her back by getting that big bad Netherese time bomb stuck in his chest, requiring him to suck magic or it goes boom super sonic.


Gale's backstory is presented as waaaaay over the top. I think he is one of the best-acted companions and maybe the most likeable but I must admit you are right on this, he's story seems like a fanfic
(unless he was f*****g a succubus disguising herself as Mystra revealing he is, in fact, just a mediocre wizard, this will be the plot twist!)



Originally Posted by Worm

edit: As for the topic at hand. I really think it's just ruby tinted glasses. People remember BG1 and BG2 really fondly and likely played them when they were younger and more forgiving of things. Now they've built up amazing unmeetable standards for what they want in the game and the characters have fallen short. Now they're going to fight tooth and nail because somehow they really believe they're going to trigger Larian to do emergency rewrites or something.

This idea that Shadowheart is some terrible character and Morrigan is some amazing piece of writing is some kind of really personal opinion. It's valid to the person who feels this way, but it's clearly steeped in bias. Same thing for Astarion being dumb and Edwin being some amazing layered character.


Originally Posted by Bossk_Hogg
Originally Posted by FrostyFardragon
People generally come to forums to complain about something. The people who are happy with the companions are much less likely to post than people who have an axe to grind.


This. Add in the neckbeard factor because a female character dares to be anything but a doe eyed waifu and, well...

Maybe they can add in some mute companions for those who cant handle anything beyond Tolkeinesque low fantasy dirt farmers. The dwarf from the hag's hut can be your bog standard dwarven fighter. Maybe he can say "it if aint dwarven, its crap" in a scottish accent! Oho! That was funny 40 years ago and certainly still holds up! Add in an elven ranger, a hobbit thief, and an old wizard (really just Gale with a beard) and a passive cute female life cleric. Give Tav an amulet that has the narrator intone "You're a special boy! Not only are you special, but you're the MOST special, and no one else is special!". They can click it whenever they need the validation. Then the grandpa crowd can shut up and get to Denny's for their senior specials.


Not to invalidate any other criticisms but you're probably on spot my friends.

Originally Posted by Abits
Most of them are people I wouldn't want to travel with normally (except Laezel. Tell me how stupid I ammmm yesssd). But when the situation is dire you take what you can get.



This. I to find most of them irritating but I'm sticking with them because I need them to survive. This doesn't mean they are poorly written or unbelievable, just they have an attitude I don't like.



EDIT: I edited this post with all the quotes instead of writing many different ones.

Last edited by Sharet; 21/10/20 10:04 AM.
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Italy
Sharet Offline OP
member
OP Offline
member
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Italy
<3

Joined: Oct 2020
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: Oct 2020
I couldn't care less about character interaction - I booted the vampire from my camp at the first opportunity, and it had nothing to do with him being a vamp wink


.i.
Joined: Oct 2020
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Nyelin
Originally Posted by robertthebard
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.


Yep, i know. I kicked him in one playthrough because I had a shit day. The point is really that I keep him in the group for metagaming reasons: I want to see how this plays out.

Nothing wrong with that. I could come up with a ton of RP reasons to keep him, even if I don't trust him. Resource management, for one, if he's a better lockpicker than I am. I also don't have any reason to really trust him on some of the characters I may play. Just one example would be "we must find a way to control it" instead of going straight to "get this thing out of my head". For those characters, there is an option to reject him outright, on the spot, I believe? That said, some of my characters will, undoubtedly, be right there with him on learning to control it, and use it for my own ends.

However, not liking a character doesn't have to equate to bad writing. In fact, not liking a character can come down to good writing. I don't know enough about any of the companions to say for sure, at this point in the game. My prime example for this will always be Alistair in Dragon Age. I despise him as a person. I really do. However, I love the fact that David Gaider could write him in such a way that he garners that vitriol from me. It is, however, entirely possible to play about 3/4 of the game before you get to where he showed his true colors to me, on the way in to Redcliffe. The point being, that there may well be redeeming qualities in any or all of these companions, and we'll never know if we just let first impressions rule whether we keep them or not. I really think there should be a dialog about Astarion with the rest of the party to the effect of "we can't trust him, because vampire, but we need him if we're going to get rid of these tadpoles", or, something completely opposite of that if we're going to remove him. It's not a "hey, you have to like x" thing either. Nothing could be further from the truth. It's more of a "we really don't know much about any of them, and we're not in a position where we're going to learn much in what we have" thing, and as with my position on the setting's feel, we're deliberately placed in such a way as to not spoil a lot of what's to come. It may well come to pass that some of them are irredeemable, and I sincerely hope that this is the case. "Bringing everyone to the light" is way too tropey to keep happening all the time, and it would be a refreshing change of pace, sort of like Morrigan.

Joined: Mar 2020
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Mar 2020
Originally Posted by robertthebard
Originally Posted by Nyelin
Originally Posted by robertthebard
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.


Yep, i know. I kicked him in one playthrough because I had a shit day. The point is really that I keep him in the group for metagaming reasons: I want to see how this plays out.

Nothing wrong with that. I could come up with a ton of RP reasons to keep him, even if I don't trust him. Resource management, for one, if he's a better lockpicker than I am. I also don't have any reason to really trust him on some of the characters I may play. Just one example would be "we must find a way to control it" instead of going straight to "get this thing out of my head". For those characters, there is an option to reject him outright, on the spot, I believe? That said, some of my characters will, undoubtedly, be right there with him on learning to control it, and use it for my own ends.

However, not liking a character doesn't have to equate to bad writing. In fact, not liking a character can come down to good writing. I don't know enough about any of the companions to say for sure, at this point in the game. My prime example for this will always be Alistair in Dragon Age. I despise him as a person. I really do. However, I love the fact that David Gaider could write him in such a way that he garners that vitriol from me. It is, however, entirely possible to play about 3/4 of the game before you get to where he showed his true colors to me, on the way in to Redcliffe. The point being, that there may well be redeeming qualities in any or all of these companions, and we'll never know if we just let first impressions rule whether we keep them or not. I really think there should be a dialog about Astarion with the rest of the party to the effect of "we can't trust him, because vampire, but we need him if we're going to get rid of these tadpoles", or, something completely opposite of that if we're going to remove him. It's not a "hey, you have to like x" thing either. Nothing could be further from the truth. It's more of a "we really don't know much about any of them, and we're not in a position where we're going to learn much in what we have" thing, and as with my position on the setting's feel, we're deliberately placed in such a way as to not spoil a lot of what's to come. It may well come to pass that some of them are irredeemable, and I sincerely hope that this is the case. "Bringing everyone to the light" is way too tropey to keep happening all the time, and it would be a refreshing change of pace, sort of like Morrigan.

Yep this. Dragon Age Origins should always be your go-to when discussing how good companions should be.


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
I just want have friend like Deekin!

Last edited by Rouoko; 21/10/20 01:42 PM.
Joined: Oct 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Sharet

Dude, even if I don't share the complaining about the current companions I never called anyone "infantile" nor I presumed anything about anyone. I'll ask you to do the same.

You presumed plenty. Do not pass judgement if you do not want to receive it.

Originally Posted by Sharet
1) I don't think they are poorly written and what you are saying is that you don't find them likeable because they are too self-centred, which is exactly my point. As I said, "I can understand someone not liking the personality of a character, fair enough, but not liking it without considering the context is a weak argumentation." No one likes a "look at me, I'm important" character, the thing I think is missing from your argumentation is again, context. Of course they are self-centred at the beginning of the adventure, you are all strangers to one another and the only people you have a notion of is yourselves. You are going to talk about you and focus on your personal objectives, not asking "how was your day darling?". As the game progresses and you open up to one another, things are gonna change, in fact they change even before the end of act one, as I mentioned.

If it is so self evident why did you not directly address the examples given and completely ignore the two established scientific areas of study that contradict their behavior as well as demonstrating that people have varied responses to these stimuli? This factor alone can be used to defend that they are poorly written as their characters and context are not taken into account when considering their reactions and behavior. We have credible and proven scientific data to back this up.

Furthermore no. Not everyone is self centered and once again making everyone self centered diminishes the variety of characterization, is ignorant of context and other factors, and diminishes the quality of writing by it's very nature. Claiming that people are automatically self centered around strangers is absolutely ludicrous as even by examining common language you can find evidence that this is not the case from expressions such as "good samaritan". Again, we have scientific research into this and while it is not impossible the choice to not explore other avenues or write other reactions diminishes variety and characterization thereby detracting from the quality of the writing.

Originally Posted by Sharet
2) Do you really think the usual job environment is a good comparison with having a living parasite inside you who is going to end you at any moment? If their behaviour will stay like that for weeks or months after the discovery that the tadpole is in stasis and they are in no immediate danger then I will agree they are reacting in a poor way, but the events of the EA take place in just a couple of days after the abduction, their stress and bad reaction are more than justified. Sure, you could've wished for more positive characters capable of handling stress better, but suggesting that SH selfishness in this context is unrealistic is to be blind, in my opinion.

I already addressed this. We have scientific evidence and study to back up a multitude of valid reactions and we understanding a lot of the reasons for it. This being left out diminshes the quality and characterization through homogenuity thereby automatically decreasing the quality of the writing. To put this in laymans terms, all the characters being samey is evidence of poor writing.

Originally Posted by Sharet
3) Again, me suspecting of having carbon monoxide poisoning that will kill me slowly in the real world is not the same of having a tadpole in your head who is going to rip your organs after a couple of days. In the real world, in case of poisoning, I will not be in a good mood for sure, but at least I know there are doctors who are going to reassure and take care of me, it is all another story than having a tadpole you can't get rid of and with the only known "medic" of the place missing (you find Halsin only near the end of EA). It's an RPG, people should try to imaging themselves in the world, characters and CONTEXT.

You are right, carbon monoxide poisoning is infinitely more terrifying. Nothing you said responded to the question I asked. The reason you are presenting this argument is because I gave you the diagnosis but in reality all you would feel is extreme nausea, headaches, dizziness etc which can be attributed to a multitude of problems many of which doctors do not have a sure fire way of fixing. I was a soldier, I do not need to imagine, I have been there. I have had these experiences. It is not justification for the lack of characterization and variety which ignores scientific research and evidence.

Originally Posted by Sharet
4) I don't know what kind of example do you want honestly. I find them written exquisitely because they are *believable* when you are talking to them. I can't say if their stories are well written because I know only the tip of the iceberg since we are still in EA, but I know they feel alive like few other both in the good and the bad.

I'm not sure what you want me to say. You cannot give me examples which means there either aren't any or you do not know the technicalities behind writing standard which is even worse. I can link you to articles regarding the characterization of characters if you want but honestly at this point I'm pretty much committed to making an in depth analysis of this so I'd rather wait for you to provide me with some kind of evidence until that time.

Originally Posted by Sharet
5) A company doesn't create a game only because "people are asking for it", besides, the fact that there are people in this forum who have bought EA means that there are people who wanted the game. If you think a game called "BG3" doesn't deserve to be played because it has no connection (for now) with the previous title just don't play it.

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/marketing-fraud.asp#:~:text=What%20Is%20Marketing%20Fraud%3F,article%2C%20and%20hiding%20side%20effects.
https://dcba.lacounty.gov/portfolio/false-advertising/
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/b/brand-recognition.asp
I think those would be interesting reads and well worth your time. Also what I said was that a game called BG3 has big shoes to fill on account of it's brand recognition as well as the finality on which the series closed while drawing attention to the fact that there is no connection and therefor no reason to call it the third part of a series other than brand recognition. Do not twist my words to suit your argument.

Originally Posted by Sharet
Of course, you can criticise some aspects of it (even I think BG story-arc should have stayed untouched and this game should have been called with another name), as I said there are a lot of good criticisms in this forum, but they must be valid, and constructive. Saying "I don't like the characters because they are rude" is a valid opinion but not a criticism.

Again, this is not what I said. I said that these characters are poorly written when compared to previous iterations of the series as well as when compared with other works of fiction that are considered to be of high standard. I said that "the characters are mean" is a very minor complaint which has some basis in criticism regarding characterization but that more often than not it is the only thing defenders of the writing hold onto(such as you are doing) because they feel it is easily debunked(it isn't) and thereby refutes the other arguments as well.

Please, stop twisting my words. It is presumptuous of you and you have already complained about this.

Originally Posted by Sharet
You can criticise how a character backstory is written because is inconsistent or full of cliché (for example I agree they feel all to important to be lvl one characters), but you can't criticise a character just because you don't like its *attitude* more so when said attitude is coherent with the context. You can say "I personally don't like mean character", and it will be a respectable opinion, not "I personally don't like mean character, therefore Larian has written them badly".

I didn't criticize it because I don't like it, I criticized it because it doesn't work well. Furthermore, why did you dilute the argument about them being main characters while also being side characters into "I think they are mean so they are poorly written" yet again and ignore the actual argument? You are being intellectually dishonest.

You did not address any criticism other than "they are mean" which wasn't part of my argument, ignored evidence and failed to present your own, and made many presumptions as well as twisting and misrepresenting my words to suit your argument. Maybe you did not do so intentionally, I don't know, but I will advise you that this does not work on me.


Last edited by Argonaut; 21/10/20 03:33 PM.

I am here to discuss a video game. Please do not try to rope me into anything other than that. Thank you.
Joined: Aug 2014
T
member
Offline
member
T
Joined: Aug 2014
1.) Theres too few of them, you only have 3 spots to fil but 5 people to choose from and if you want a party of cool likeable characters you're shit out of luck.
2.) They are overly integrated into the experience. Too much work and detail has gone into making the characters.
3.) #2 is why we have #1
4.) If you think there will be more companions you will be sorely disapointed.

Joined: Oct 2020
D
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
D
Joined: Oct 2020
I think my only complaint when it comes to the companions is the initial encounter with Astarion. I do not particularly like the only options of him placing a knife at my throat, then a wrestling match only to become "friends" or "companions." Personally I feel the PC should have additional options that do not end in a knife to the throat and then becoming besties.

Additionally, I find it odd that with the exception of Lae'zel and Shadowheart, you do not see any of the companions on the ship. Gale recalls seeing you on the ship, but where was he during all of this? Why can we not free Shadowheart or meet additional companions on the ship if we are all on the same ship together. This seems rather odd to me.

With the other companions, I can see why they are the way they are, and it does not bother me once you dig a bit deeper into their actual character. Gale seems to have a superiority complex, but it goes with his background as being a prodigal wizard. Probably akin to him being better than most his whole life or having other privilege's (if that's even the case).

Shadowheart comes off in such a way that it may be interpreted as her being rude/mean etc. When looking at her closer you can see its just a front and she does it so others wont get to close/pry etc.

Lae'zel comes from a different place altogether and their rules and customs are vastly different, so I do not expect my character to understand where she is coming from, much like I do not expect her to know where I am coming from either. On a side note, I find it humorous that there are several dialogues with other NPC's regarding noses, or lack their of.

Wyll is the "hero" in mind at least and tells you his intentions as it comes to the Goblins. He wants to kill them all and should be expected to act in such away to these enemies.

Larian mentioned the other characters would be their own beings and do things when the PC is not around, so its not to hard to see why some characters act a certain way or do certain things in game.

Someone mentioned the Gur and Astarion becoming upset about it. This makes total sense because of who and what Astarion is, and what this Gur or Monster Hunter represents to him.

Personally I expect the other characters to have their own personalities and make varying decisions because this is an RPG styled game. If you were playing 5e or any other table top styled game, the DM would have the NPC's make varying statements and decisions that you would not agree with, but that is part of their charm/frustration. Not everything will go smoothly.

Lastly, on my various playthroughs, I have yet to see the other members of the party get together and say something along the lines of "You are the PC and our de facto leader here on out."

We as a PC have to learn to trust the other parties and in turn they have to learn to trust us. We do not know one another, but it seems like other people expect the characters to follow you blindly.

Joined: Oct 2020
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by DrNikolai
I think my only complaint when it comes to the companions is the initial encounter with Astarion. I do not particularly like the only options of him placing a knife at my throat, then a wrestling match only to become "friends" or "companions." Personally I feel the PC should have additional options that do not end in a knife to the throat and then becoming besties.

Additionally, I find it odd that with the exception of Lae'zel and Shadowheart, you do not see any of the companions on the ship. Gale recalls seeing you on the ship, but where was he during all of this? Why can we not free Shadowheart or meet additional companions on the ship if we are all on the same ship together. This seems rather odd to me.

With the other companions, I can see why they are the way they are, and it does not bother me once you dig a bit deeper into their actual character. Gale seems to have a superiority complex, but it goes with his background as being a prodigal wizard. Probably akin to him being better than most his whole life or having other privilege's (if that's even the case).

Shadowheart comes off in such a way that it may be interpreted as her being rude/mean etc. When looking at her closer you can see its just a front and she does it so others wont get to close/pry etc.

Lae'zel comes from a different place altogether and their rules and customs are vastly different, so I do not expect my character to understand where she is coming from, much like I do not expect her to know where I am coming from either. On a side note, I find it humorous that there are several dialogues with other NPC's regarding noses, or lack their of.

Wyll is the "hero" in mind at least and tells you his intentions as it comes to the Goblins. He wants to kill them all and should be expected to act in such away to these enemies.

Larian mentioned the other characters would be their own beings and do things when the PC is not around, so its not to hard to see why some characters act a certain way or do certain things in game.

Someone mentioned the Gur and Astarion becoming upset about it. This makes total sense because of who and what Astarion is, and what this Gur or Monster Hunter represents to him.

Personally I expect the other characters to have their own personalities and make varying decisions because this is an RPG styled game. If you were playing 5e or any other table top styled game, the DM would have the NPC's make varying statements and decisions that you would not agree with, but that is part of their charm/frustration. Not everything will go smoothly.

Lastly, on my various playthroughs, I have yet to see the other members of the party get together and say something along the lines of "You are the PC and our de facto leader here on out."

We as a PC have to learn to trust the other parties and in turn they have to learn to trust us. We do not know one another, but it seems like other people expect the characters to follow you blindly.

I've only had the knife to the throat once in 4 goes. So the options are there, you just didn't get it. How many times have you had this interaction with him? If it's only one, then how can you say there are no other options, and if it's multiple, but you're using the same dialog option every time, how can you say there are no other ways for that to turn out?

Joined: Oct 2020
T
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
T
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by DrNikolai

Additionally, I find it odd that with the exception of Lae'zel and Shadowheart, you do not see any of the companions on the ship. Gale recalls seeing you on the ship, but where was he during all of this? Why can we not free Shadowheart or meet additional companions on the ship if we are all on the same ship together. This seems rather odd to me.


I'm actually pretty sure you run into Gale on the ship. He's out of it on the surface of the ship, near where the thralls are firing the canons. You can't really interact with him at that time however.

Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Rugby, UK
Cleric of Innuendo
Offline
Cleric of Innuendo
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Rugby, UK
There are loads of pods hanging in the background in some of the scenes on the ship. I guess the others were in some of those.

Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Netherlands
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Netherlands
Quote
I to have found Shadowheart talking to me like shit after our kiss, but remember that in this early access a lot of conversations are screwed up both in timing and context, they are going to fix it.

I had Shadowheart ree-ing at me after failing a pursuasion check to convince her that I was okay with her Shar worship, then immediatly shoot into flirty mode when I asked her about our kiss. That Shar worship dialogue option and the one about the Gith box seems to constantly come back also, must be a bug.

Last edited by Vhaldez; 21/10/20 02:19 PM.
Joined: Oct 2020
T
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
T
Joined: Oct 2020
Even though I've mostly pissed off Lae'Zel, Shadowheart, and Asterion, they all wanted to bone me in camp last night. I think that Larian made the "romance" section trivially easy to complete on any run in EA because they wanted us to get "flavor" for the romance.

Joined: Oct 2020
member
Offline
member
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Telephasic
Even though I've mostly pissed off Lae'Zel, Shadowheart, and Asterion, they all wanted to bone me in camp last night. I think that Larian made the "romance" section trivially easy to complete on any run in EA because they wanted us to get "flavor" for the romance.

All of them want kill me. I probably have done something wrong.

Joined: Jan 2018
W
old hand
Offline
old hand
W
Joined: Jan 2018
Yeah, I have no game. So far only Astarion propositioned me. I gave him the old “maybe next time, bro,” and backed away.

Not that I want to romance any of these characters. I like them, but I don’t like like them.

Joined: Oct 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2020
These "companions"...acting...Like watching really bad TV.
I blame EVERYTHING with the unnecessary need to have cinematic movie like dialogues. The time and resources necessary for just this really taxed Larian.
If it weren't for those we could of had a great BG2 like playable big NPCs cast, more interesting dialogues, tons and tons of more content, bigger party etc....Because of this decision, you cant even MOD in new playable NPCs to tie in with the story; like the multitude of amazing NPC mods for BG2.

Last edited by mr_planescapist; 21/10/20 03:02 PM.
Page 5 of 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

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