Baldur's Gate 3

[Old_Hunter_77]

> So I think that is what people are praising the most is how good the little story moments feel versus a game-spanning story being mind-blowing.

Well first thanks for the thoughtful reply, appreciate it and your enthusiasm for these games.

I was though thinking more about the "moments," or more specifically in TW3 type game, let's say side quests for example.
Like Wild At Heart, the early one where you take a job from a hunter to find out what happened to his wife but it turns out he's a werewolf who killed his wife by accident because her dumb sister tried to scare with his werewolfism in order to steal him. So you can choose to leave it alone, kill her, kill him, etc... it's neat little story with a twist and some cool voice acting, and it's short and just a nice little thing.

And if BG3 is full of stuff that's this good, then yeah, that's great that's right up my alley. Honestly I don't expect these games to deliver much on the "epic" stuff- sure some individual quests with Ciri and Yennefer are great but ultimately TW3 main story is meh, whatever (and the ending infamously rushed). So I expect same from any D&D type thing.

 

[CriticalGaming]

Like Wild At Heart, the early one where you take a job from a hunter to find out what happened to his wife but it turns out he's a werewolf who killed his wife by accident because her dumb sister tried to scare with his werewolfism in order to steal him. So you can choose to leave it alone, kill her, kill him, etc... it's neat little story with a twist and some cool voice acting, and it's short and just a nice little thing.

The choices in BG3 are much the same thing. Help the druids, kill them all, convince a goblin camp to kill them all for you, or tell the goblins where the druids are hiding but then kill the goblins when they attack and aren't at their homebase.

Many many many specific quests have lots of different ways you can approach them.

 

[Ag3ma]

And you never even admit when you're wrong like when you were comparing apples to oranges talking about the staff size at these dev studios. You said Obsidian had less than half of Larians staff, not even close to true. You said Bioware had less employees than Larian when they have about 200 more.

Larian, 434+ employees.

Larian Studios Management Team | Org Chart

rocketreach.co

Larian Studios - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Obsidian, 280 employees (estimated)

I might partly grant you this, except you should note I said with respect to Obsidian unless it has expanded recently, as the data I read at the time was a few years old. (We were mostly comparing Pillars-era Obsidian, not Microsoft-era) For the record, https://www.gamereactor.eu/obsidian-entertainment-has-now-reached-200-employees/

Bioware: 250, shortly to become 200. News fresh in today!

EA cuts 20% of BioWare staff and drops unionised playtesting company

The maker of Dragon Age and Mass Effect has had to endure cost-cutting measures as it becomes an ‘agile and more focused studio.’

metro.co.uk

Although the data I used at the time of posting was a few years old, and stated 300+ employees.

* * *

So, I may have not done the most thorough research, but I was still basically right.

Bluntly, who do you think you are and what do you think you are doing to chuck wild accusations when you haven't bothered checking your own claims? Why would you test me on stuff like this - surely you must know by now I do my research, and I can and will back up what I say?

 

[Ag3ma]

...You know what I would have loved to see? If they turned that on its head in the second act (so to speak), and established that everyone being into you as a symptom of your Mind Flayer parasite basically trying to charm/dominate your companions. And everything before that would have been a "false" romance, with the true romances starting after that revelation prompted some soul searching (including revelations about potentially incompatible sexualities and preferences) about whether their attraction was real and if - having now experienced it - they even care if it wasn't natural.

Can you just imagine that? You could have run the gamut of reactions from "I'll treasure the time we had together...but this isn't me, and I just don't think this is going to work", through "this is new for me, but I love what we have too much to let it go, so I want to keep trying, if you're up for it", all the way to "Yeah...I'd have still wanted you regardless". Never mind the questions about how willing a given character would be to continue the relationship in light of its tainted origin.

Yeah, it would be a potentially risky decision, but the setup is so conducive to it that not having it feels like a wasted opportunity.

Yes. That would be really neat.

But would the players actually like it? I would - but I also accept I'm the sort of person who likes test match cricket, so I don't pretend to be a model of what the average person likes.

 

[Bartholen]

BG3 has all the NPCs throw themselves at the PC for sex so all the horny adolescents can pick their wank fantasy, but it horribly undermines them as characters.

You know what? No. I'm gonna stand up and defend this "wank fantasy" aspect.

For one, the only party member who will actively come to you for sex is Lae'zel, and even there the context is rather detached, one-sided, and framed through her coming from an alien culture. All the others you have to actively pursue, pick certain dialogue options and avoid certain courses of action to not make them dislike you. Granted, it doesn't take much pursuing, but it's still not a case of the party members throwing themselves at the main PC.

For two, it feels like BG3 actually addresses an aspect of the traditional fantasy adventure story that's remained IMO weirdly conservative and puritanical even in a lot of modern media aimed at adults. And that's how traditionally they seem to treat sex and attraction. Take the traditional Bioware formula for example: you court the NPC of your choice, build a relationship with them first and then the ultimate reward is some tasteful fade-to-black sex. Thing is, that's a version of the process of a relationship (whether sexual or romantic) that's very much tied to how our daily lives are, which the lives of most fantasy characters stand in almost total opposition to: They face mortal peril on a regular basis and experience the adrenaline rushes that naturally entails, spend all their time with the same small group of people day in day out, have to trust their very lives to each others' hands, never stay in one place for long, and mostly traverse through wilderness or other such relatively unobserved, dangerous and lawless places. Why wouldn't people in such a situation jump each others' bones for a little bit of relief, or start to develop feelings?

 

[thebobmaster]

Oh, and if you turn down Lae'zel, her reaction basically just confirms she doesn't care about romance, she just wants to jump you, and has a high enough opinion of herself that the feeling is mutual.

 

[sXeth]

You know what? No. I'm gonna stand up and defend this "wank fantasy" aspect.

For one, the only party member who will actively come to you for sex is Lae'zel, and even there the context is rather detached, one-sided, and framed through her coming from an alien culture. All the others you have to actively pursue, pick certain dialogue options and avoid certain courses of action to not make them dislike you. Granted, it doesn't take much pursuing, but it's still not a case of the party members throwing themselves at the main PC.

For two, it feels like BG3 actually addresses an aspect of the traditional fantasy adventure story that's remained IMO weirdly conservative and puritanical even in a lot of modern media aimed at adults. And that's how traditionally they seem to treat sex and attraction. Take the traditional Bioware formula for example: you court the NPC of your choice, build a relationship with them first and then the ultimate reward is some tasteful fade-to-black sex. Thing is, that's a version of the process of a relationship (whether sexual or romantic) that's very much tied to how our daily lives are, which the lives of most fantasy characters stand in almost total opposition to: They face mortal peril on a regular basis and experience the adrenaline rushes that naturally entails, spend all their time with the same small group of people day in day out, have to trust their very lives to each others' hands, never stay in one place for long, and mostly traverse through wilderness or other such relatively unobserved, dangerous and lawless places. Why wouldn't people in such a situation jump each others' bones for a little bit of relief, or start to develop feelings?

I mean thats great and all, but *waves hand at the pre-release marketing campaign* (same thing for Mass Effect even)

Its tough to convince that you're including these options as a believable character point when you're out there with a press release "yeah you can F a bear".

And the usual problem that every character is romanceable, by any one, of any leaning. Because sexual orientations (including potential asexuals) don't exist. Conveniently there's also no one in a monogamistic relationship with an existing living partner (guess the mind flayers must hit up the singles bars when kidnapping people) Also all these exotic races are totally compatible anatomically of course.

 

[Ag3ma]

You know what? No. I'm gonna stand up and defend this "wank fantasy" aspect.

For one, the only party member who will actively come to you for sex is Lae'zel, and even there the context is rather detached, one-sided, and framed through her coming from an alien culture. All the others you have to actively pursue, pick certain dialogue options and avoid certain courses of action to not make them dislike you.

Okay, it might vary by player experience and decisions made, but every single one of them came on to my PC, with a 'vanilla' play approach. Sure, it wasn't all "OMG hammer me with your thick Staff of Throbbing +5 RIGHT NOW" but they all essentially came on to my PC, and are obviously bisexual and so will suit any PC. And yes, you can turn them down, ignore their advances. You can actively try to piss them off. You can pick routes through the game that will alienate them. But for a basic playthrough where you roleplay a fairly well-adjusted, decent person, it's a choose your own fuckbuddy wonderworld. (Does your CHA stat even influence anything - mine was only 10?)

It felt like - not that I tested - you can also fuck around the entire party like it's a free love community. You can start a properly serious affair with at least one - does your inamorato/a object if you go for a threesome in the BG brothel or have a romantic evening with another... because their jealousy might be such a downer for a player. Possibly for all I know arrange threesomes with the companions, etc. Who knows. It all feels like that's the way it is. I'm happy to be corrected by someone who has bothered to check any of this sort of thing.

A situation where everyone's willing to sleep with you unless you turn them down is a wank fantasy. All the NPCs are are sex objects. As a fanservice design choice, okay then. But it cheapens and diminishes them as characters with real emotional depth.

For two, it feels like BG3 actually addresses an aspect of the traditional fantasy adventure story that's remained IMO weirdly conservative and puritanical even in a lot of modern media aimed at adults. And that's how traditionally they seem to treat sex and attraction. Take the traditional Bioware formula for example: you court the NPC of your choice, build a relationship with them first and then the ultimate reward is some tasteful fade-to-black sex. Thing is, that's a version of the process of a relationship (whether sexual or romantic) that's very much tied to how our daily lives are, which the lives of most fantasy characters stand in almost total opposition to: They face mortal peril on a regular basis and experience the adrenaline rushes that naturally entails, spend all their time with the same small group of people day in day out, have to trust their very lives to each others' hands, never stay in one place for long, and mostly traverse through wilderness or other such relatively unobserved, dangerous and lawless places. Why wouldn't people in such a situation jump each others' bones for a little bit of relief, or start to develop feelings?

I think you're underestimating the ability to pop into brothels and fuck the prostitutes that have existed in these sorts of games since the 1990s.

I do get your point. But... all of them? Sure, maybe of 10 NPC party companions, 3 are easily fuckable, 5 need to be chatted up to a greater or lesser degree, and 2 aren't sleeping with you no matter what. Some are straight, some are gay, some are bi. And so on. I'd merely ask the characters are true to themselves and the narrative, and not too obviously player conveniences. At least, from my perspective of narrative and character coherence as a preference.

 

[Asita]

Yes. That would be really neat.

But would the players actually like it? I would - but I also accept I'm the sort of person who likes test match cricket, so I don't pretend to be a model of what the average person likes.

Mhmm. That's the real question, isn't it? As I said, would have been a risky design choice, as - depending on the particulars of a character - it could very well sweep the rug out from under the player in a very unpleasant way. On the other hand though - provided that the "false" romances didn't lock out the "true" romances, then it would recontexualize the dead-end false ones as functionally the same as the one-night stands we still see in the final product. Arguably more robust, actually, if the dead-ends were situational based on the characters' preferences, thereby encouraging repeat playthoughs to properly pursue those romances.

Though, like yourself, I'm not sure I'm the best metric for whether or not that would be an attractive idea. I like it because I like seeing NPCs with varied sexualities and preferences, I love the idea of how how horrifically insidious it would make Mind Flayer abilities, and I love how it would make romance arcs actually serve a narrative purpose (if not several). But I fully acknowledge that as someone who loves geeking out about the what and why of stories as much as about the stories themselves...I'm probably not the most representative sample of the target audience. So I certainly take your point.

 

[sXeth]

So this is a surprisingly common trope in fantasy.

"You, sirrah, have brought ruin upon my hearth and home and slain my family. As punishment, I curse thee with my dying breath that you shall live forever, so you can ruin other people's hearths and homes for eternity! Because surely the misery, despair and devastation you will go on to inflict on many thousands more people is a small price to pay for your suffering."

Well to be fair, they didn't specifically turn him into an immortal/super long lived human, that apparently just happens to elves when they get too far from their great trees. In the the true spirit of adaptation, this feature of being an elf in the Forgotten Realms existed neither before nor after Baldurs Gate 2.

There is a reason, that while I will (at times harshly) critique a lot of BG3's goofy aspects, you can't really hold them to task for not adhering to the setting, because literally none of the D&D videogames ever do. If you tried to merge all the "licensed" lore into canon, it'd be even more of a cluster**** then WotC themselves have made with some of their marketing mandated adjustments lol

(Although I was introduced to the fact that Larian created, wholesale, and without any context or backstory "Seldarine Drow" as subrace for the game. And THAT is just such silly idea that I literally laughed out for several minutes. (A "Seldarine Drow" would just be a high elf, even if you managed to tell the story of how that thousands year blood feud ever ended)

 

[Baffle]

I am a holy paladin and I do not know how this demon fell into my pants. They are really nice pants though, I bought them at the barber shop.

 

[Ag3ma]

Well to be fair, they didn't specifically turn him into an immortal/super long lived human, that apparently just happens to elves when they get too far from their great trees.

I get that. But even still, it's surprisingly common in fantasy that literally anyone at all - up to and including gods themselves - thinks it's a good idea to punish any evildoer with any form of eternal life when they are not a completely disempowered shade.

Instead, we get the likes of Lord Soth (D&D / Dragonlance), or Kallor (Steven Erikson's books) free to tear shit up generation after generation.

 

[Gordon_4]

I get that. But even still, it's surprisingly common in fantasy that literally anyone at all - up to and including gods themselves - thinks it's a good idea to punish any evildoer with any form of eternal life when they are not a completely disempowered shade.

Instead, we get the likes of Lord Soth (D&D / Dragonlance), or Kallor (Steven Erikson's books) free to tear shit up generation after generation.

I have much the same thought about Imhotep in the Brendan Fraser “The Mummy” movies. I mean he cops it pretty hard at the the start with the removal of the tongue, mummified alive and locked in with the flesh eating beetles. But as soon as they open his sarcophagus and read from his book BAM! He’s a super powered undead/immortal sorcerer.

What the fuck was wrong with just disemboweling him and cutting his fucking head off? Take a grand total of two hours and everyone can get pissed before the sun goes down.

 

[Satinavian]

Honestly, I don't think the narrative quality and emotional resonance is high. It's not bad, either, mind, it's just quite... ordinary.

Take Shadowheart. I said she comes across as uneven. Someone else pointed out she is possibly supposed to be in conflict - but you don't really get much sense of that inner conflict. She's just "Praise Shar!" here and "Down with Selune!" there, and then at a crunch moment with a nudge from the player junks it all in and switches to Selune. There is obviously a clash between her relatively nice side and the raw cruelty of Shar, but it's just not really dealt with at all. Or Wyll, oh so dedicated to rescuing his father, and then at the flick of a PC nudge, can just be persuaded "Ah fuck it, he's gone", let's move on.

Yes, overall it is okish, but not great.

I would say WotR has better NPCs and plotlines. And even that does venture into "great" territory

It felt like - not that I tested - you can also fuck around the entire party like it's a free love community. You can start a properly serious affair with at least one - does your inamorato/a object if you go for a threesome in the BG brothel or have a romantic evening with another... because their jealousy might be such a downer for a player. Possibly for all I know arrange threesomes with the companions, etc. Who knows. It all feels like that's the way it is. I'm happy to be corrected by someone who has bothered to check any of this sort of thing.

Not that i actually tried to do so, but i have heard that some demand esclusivity, others don't and some object to specific pairings. Which would be good if true but i am really not invested enough to dig deeper.

 

[Baffle]

Hit the level cap. The sex level cap that is. No, just the normal level cap really.

I'm fairly near the end of the game I think, but it feels like this could've been left uncapped even if it made things trivial.

 

[Ag3ma]

Hit the level cap. The sex level cap that is. No, just the normal level cap really.

I'm fairly near the end of the game I think, but it feels like this could've been left uncapped even if it made things trivial.

Gotta restrict levels enough to make room for an expansion.

 

[Satinavian]

DoS didn't get any. Not sure they will make any.

 

[Ag3ma]

Yes, overall it is okish, but not great.

I would say WotR has better NPCs and plotlines. And even that does venture into "great" territory

I picked up a grimdark indie RPG a year or two back called Vagrus - very different style, mind. Massively text heavy. Far better written than any BG, or most others. (I loved it, btw, and I feel absolutely no shame shilling for them to get more customers.)

One of the issues with that is if you complete one of the companion's quest threads, that companion exits your party permanently. Some players protested, because it feels like a punishment for completing a quest correctly. But I would argue it was absolutely the right decision, at least from a narrative perspective.

 

[hanselthecaretaker2]

I mean that's the balance that has to be struck for everyone right? I don't like immersive sims for that reason. Game's like Dues Ex, Prey 2018, Deathloop, System Shock, totally not my style. But I like loot based games like Path of Exile, Diablo, Nioh, on top of games with big narratives. GoW 2018 and Rag are great for me because I get that narrative but also get enough side shit to do to keep playing that it makes them even better on top of the narrative. It's also why TW3 was so great as well imo, where a lot of people had problems with some aspect of it (typically combat) that didn't bother me at all. On the flip side it explains why I hate Zelda games, because there is not enough story there to keep pushing me through all the tedium and bland exploration.

I don’t mind TW3’s combat in itself. It’s simple and fits the game style pretty well as Geralt is supposed to be kinda like a ballerina of death with his swords and focus spells. I think they just threw everything but the kitchen sink into its design so I really have to be in the mindset and have time to take it all in, which is tougher to do these days.

The classic Zelda’s were great, because they had tight world design with unique puzzles tied into progression, simple but engaging combat, and everything felt relevant. It don’t think there’s really been a modern example that could replicate the feel of them yet. Some have come close in different aspects like Metroidvania’s and SoulsBorne stuff but they focus more on combat/environmental engagement, and replace the puzzle aspects with lore hidden in everything in the latter.

 

[sXeth]

I get that. But even still, it's surprisingly common in fantasy that literally anyone at all - up to and including gods themselves - thinks it's a good idea to punish any evildoer with any form of eternal life when they are not a completely disempowered shade.

Instead, we get the likes of Lord Soth (D&D / Dragonlance), or Kallor (Steven Erikson's books) free to tear shit up generation after generation.

I mean, at the time the world was seemingly ending in an apocalypse, Soth's dying wife probbably thought it was gonna be a pretty downhill ride. There was also a bunch of witches and uh, suspiciously uncharacteristically evil elves involved in that whole thing that made it seem like a bit of a setup by one of the evil powers to create a useful champion.

Usually its implied in these case though that the person in question was often already immortal or otherwise powerful enough that they couldn't be stopped, so putting them in a proverbial trashcan on the moon is the next base thing.

Ironically, thats also the origin of Drow. Araushnee (Later Lolth, the very barely spunaround expy of Lilith) tries to take over the elven pantheon fails, and consequently gets banished to hell, and all her followers from the high elves get turned into drow and cast into the underdark. (Consequently, this woudl also generally indicate if the drow ever redeemed to the elven gods, they'd just get uncursed back to regular elves)