I think Robert's brain is incapable of differentiating between information you need for the story to function for an audience versus information that isn't necessary for the audience to follow the story.
Did we need to know all oblivion gods to understand oblivion's intro? Nope. Who the assassins are? Nope. Where Cyrodil is or what is so special about the emperor? Nope. It was pretty clear cut for what the player needed to do. Survive and follow through the emperor's request. The story doesn't require the player to know everything.
The same is true about the Witcher 3. Do I need to know what happened in the previous 2 games? No. Do I need to know what happened in the books? No. Do I need to know all the geopolitics? No.
I am a white haired cat eyed man who kills monsters. Is searching for his love interest and finds clues in the local village. There is a war happening with southern black and gold clad germans-like people kicking red and white clad eastern european like country in some nearby village. It just isn't necessary for me to know more and as the game progresses everyhing will be explained as it was necessary for me and other viewers to get context.
The problem with Shar is there is no context. if the game and story setting was simpler with angels vs demons and Shadowheart being a demon worshipper that would make require less explanation because presumebly for the first 30 minutes I saw demons being evil and whoever that associates with them is not a cool person to hang out with. But obviously that isn't the case here.
What is interesting is that this game is CONSTANTLY narrating things a denizen of Fearun would know anyway. So why not give a narration about Shar? It just doesn't make sense especially considering how integral Shar seems to be in the story.
This is a very good post. Well stated.
Also…I read every book I find in game (I enjoy doing so) and have a decent memory. I also dislike long exposition dumps, and do not want that in the game at all. It just so happens that I did not read any books before the Shadowheart reveal that told me more than this: Shar was the Lady of Loss (and is mean to her loyal followers to teach them), and is the sister of Selune, and a dark deity.I kinda saw her as the Yin to the Yang type goddess. I did not know anything about her followers being murderers and consorting with terrible creatures to do bad things (as I learned from googling). I had no idea about how others in the world felt about her or her followers either…ie, the people of Faerun. My companions thought it no big deal.
Could it be that maybe…just maybe…folks on here that have known Forgotten Realms lore for years and years just *might*, a teensy bit, fail to notice how some things are really poorly explained in this game? Is it possible that the game lore seems easy to digest to some because those folks already know alot of it? And is it possible that people who happen *not* to know it might indeed be reading all those books and exploring every nook and cranny just like you, but are still missing vital context because it is just not there?
I know about Avernus and tiefling distrust. Why? A history skill role and a stroll thru the druid grove. I also know a bunch about harpers and druids. I know about vampires and githtankyi from convos with Asterion and Lazeal. I know about all kinds of other things about the world cause I explored it and paid attention. Hell..I know more about some random pain goddess than Shar in game. I even know about goblins and their god Maglubiyat.
Still had no idea how to respond to Shadowhearts reveal when it happened. It is fair feedback.
I don’t know why the newbs are getting accused of being too lazy to read. It may not be the case. And it is a small thing that is being asked for. (Go to the RtWP topic to see demands for substantial game changes)
