Why does this game feel like it was written by edgy 13year olds? Why is everyone in this world an ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥?

[Tom Mischief]

Seriously... I can get easily over the fact there are bugs (EA after all), and that the DnD system is not really optimised for CRPGs and doesn't work as perfect as CRPG-native systems (DOS2), but why is EVERYONE in the game the "Edgy Rogue ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥" archetype?

If the designers were going for an "Everyone hates the edgy rogue player, now we will let you play with a party that consists ONLY of edgy rogues in a world, where everyone is either an idiot or a jerk".


The old BG games were great to mix drama and a harsh world with light-hearted themes, gruff, psycho characters with good ones. BG3 is just too "TOO EDGY FOR YOU (TM)" and it feels like it was written by inexperienced storytellers who do not know, when to stop...

[Coldhands]

My issue with the writing is that it feels like it was written by authors who like the NPCs they made up better than the player character, and that the player is more along for the ride rather making important decisions and leading the party.
Like, you have conversations with your companions where the writer very obviously wants their NPC to say a specific thing, or convey a specific message, and it doesn't really matter what options you choose in the conversation, you're going to hear it.
Basically, the writing never seems to care how the player feels about what's being said, even when it's giving them multiple response options.

It's not terrible, but it's not near the level of something like New Vegas or Pillars of Eternity 2.

[MortVent]

Oprindeligt skrevet af Coldhands:

My issue with the writing is that it feels like it was written by authors who like the NPCs they made up better than the player character, and that the player is more along for the ride rather making important decisions and leading the party.
Like, you have conversations with your companions where the writer very obviously wants their NPC to say a specific thing, or convey a specific message, and it doesn't really matter what options you choose in the conversation, you're going to hear it.
Basically, the writing never seems to care how the player feels about what's being said, even when it's giving them multiple response options.

It's not terrible, but it's not near the level of something like New Vegas or Pillars of Eternity 2.

There is a big lack of player agency it seems... almost more a choose your own adventure book level of campaign. (akin to the original nwn campaign ) Railroaded with the illusion of choices

[Snobby Hobo]

Oprindeligt skrevet af Coldhands:

My issue with the writing is that it feels like it was written by authors who like the NPCs they made up better than the player character, and that the player is more along for the ride rather making important decisions and leading the party.
Like, you have conversations with your companions where the writer very obviously wants their NPC to say a specific thing, or convey a specific message, and it doesn't really matter what options you choose in the conversation, you're going to hear it.
Basically, the writing never seems to care how the player feels about what's being said, even when it's giving them multiple response options.

It's not terrible, but it's not near the level of something like New Vegas or Pillars of Eternity 2.

This is extremely true and an excellent observation. I also came to notice this after savescumming several rolls. Every dialogue in this game is there to convey 1 message; no matter what branch you follow it is going to come out. Worse yet; usually all paths lead to Rome - the one pivotal piece of dialogue.

[Spritefall]

I somewhat agree. I greatly dislike Astarion, Lae'zel, and Shadowheart. They are quite troublesome to be around. I do not like Evil companions. That said, I greatly like Wyll and Gale. I greatly look forward to more Good-aligned and nicer companions in the future. Thank you.

[Coldhands]

Oprindeligt skrevet af Incredibly average:

Oprindeligt skrevet af Coldhands:

My issue with the writing is that it feels like it was written by authors who like the NPCs they made up better than the player character, and that the player is more along for the ride rather making important decisions and leading the party.
Like, you have conversations with your companions where the writer very obviously wants their NPC to say a specific thing, or convey a specific message, and it doesn't really matter what options you choose in the conversation, you're going to hear it.
Basically, the writing never seems to care how the player feels about what's being said, even when it's giving them multiple response options.

It's not terrible, but it's not near the level of something like New Vegas or Pillars of Eternity 2.

This is extremely true and an excellent observation. I also came to notice this after savescumming several rolls. Every dialogue in this game is there to convey 1 message; no matter what branch you follow it is going to come out. Worse yet; usually all paths lead to Rome - the one pivotal piece of dialogue.

Yeah, that's pretty much it. A lot of RPGs do this, even well written ones, but the good ones are able to hide it so that the player never feels like they're being railroaded into saying or hearing a certain thing or getting a certain outcome.

BG3's pretty obvious sidelining of the player character, combined with the Mass Effect Andromeda level overacting on the facial expressions kinda undercuts the idea that your character is your character, or in anyway in charge of anything. The game is telling the player the story more than it is involving them in it.

[totalrugby]

Everyone has an opinion, and while I enjoy the game of BG 3 there are games with better writing, but while I enjoy Fallout New Vegas, I would never put Pillars of Eternity 2 up as a example of excellent writing. Maybe Pillars 1, for the time it came out in, but honestly I beat POE 2 twice and I can barely think of any aspect that was well written. Not the quests, not the companions, maybe the reactivity based on class/race/ability choices.

[Snobby Hobo]

Oprindeligt skrevet af Coldhands:

Oprindeligt skrevet af Incredibly average:

This is extremely true and an excellent observation. I also came to notice this after savescumming several rolls. Every dialogue in this game is there to convey 1 message; no matter what branch you follow it is going to come out. Worse yet; usually all paths lead to Rome - the one pivotal piece of dialogue.

Yeah, that's pretty much it. A lot of RPGs do this, even well written ones, but the good ones are able to hide it so that the player never feels like they're being railroaded into saying or hearing a certain thing or getting a certain outcome.

BG3's pretty obvious sidelining of the player character, combined with the Mass Effect Andromeda level overacting on the facial expressions kinda undercuts the idea that your character is your character, or in anyway in charge of anything. The game is telling the player the story more than it is involving them in it.

I agree that it's probably but a pragmatic choice. Like you said it's not uncommon for dialogue trees to result in more or less the same message. It needs be conveyed to advance the plot after all.

That being said I do think BG3 handles this extremely poorly. For me it's not so much the lack of player agency(probably because I genuinely don't really care about that) but the fact that any reaction leading to the same response flattens every character you meet. They're all going to tell you what they must regardless of you just having called their mother whatnot. It feels unrealistic and detached.

[KeyboardBerserker]

One thing i hope they work on is the bg system where you have to play good/evil to match your good/evil party. I think having disparity in alignment with your party, but working to keep them working as a team could be engaging if done the right way. Being a good shepard of evil cats could be pretty amusing for a playthrough.

[totalrugby]

Oprindeligt skrevet af Incredibly average:

Oprindeligt skrevet af Coldhands:

Yeah, that's pretty much it. A lot of RPGs do this, even well written ones, but the good ones are able to hide it so that the player never feels like they're being railroaded into saying or hearing a certain thing or getting a certain outcome.

BG3's pretty obvious sidelining of the player character, combined with the Mass Effect Andromeda level overacting on the facial expressions kinda undercuts the idea that your character is your character, or in anyway in charge of anything. The game is telling the player the story more than it is involving them in it.

I agree that it's probably but a pragmatic choice. Like you said it's not uncommon for dialogue trees to result in more or less the same message. It needs be conveyed to advance the plot after all.

That being said I do think BG3 handles this extremely poorly. For me it's not so much the lack of player agency(probably because I genuinely don't really care about that) but the fact that any reaction leading to the same response flattens every character you meet. They're all going to tell you what they must regardless of you just having called their mother whatnot. It feels unrealistic and detached.

I really don't get your comment, I mean some npcs die if you kill them and then don't tell you anything, several will attack you when you pick wrong dialogue choices. So to say, everyone says X, regardless of what you say, just doesn't make sense to me. You mean the companions?

[Stray952]

Oprindeligt skrevet af pandariuskairos:

"Why does this game feel like it was written by edgy 13year olds?"

Because it was.

lol

[Spritefall]

Oprindeligt skrevet af Oscillationpoint:

One thing i hope they work on is the bg system where you have to play good/evil to match your good/evil party. I think having disparity in alignment with your party, but working to keep them working as a team could be engaging if done the right way. Being a good shepard of evil cats could be pretty amusing for a playthrough.

As I recall the older Baldur's Gate games primarily achieved this through a global Reputation system. BG3 has individual companion approval, which can be maddening with the current companions, as they often disapprove of helping people, or accepting quests, or even saving children. I dislike all of them who do so, thus the only exceptions being Wyll and Gale. The other companions are indeed stressful and troublesome, I do not enjoy them. I greatly look forward to gaining the ability to create a fully Good-aligned party with newer, nicer companions.

[Snobby Hobo]

Oprindeligt skrevet af totalrugby:

Oprindeligt skrevet af Incredibly average:

I agree that it's probably but a pragmatic choice. Like you said it's not uncommon for dialogue trees to result in more or less the same message. It needs be conveyed to advance the plot after all.

That being said I do think BG3 handles this extremely poorly. For me it's not so much the lack of player agency(probably because I genuinely don't really care about that) but the fact that any reaction leading to the same response flattens every character you meet. They're all going to tell you what they must regardless of you just having called their mother whatnot. It feels unrealistic and detached.

I really don't get your comment, I mean some npcs die if you kill them and then don't tell you anything, several will attack you when you pick wrong dialogue choices. So to say, everyone says X, regardless of what you say, just doesn't make sense to me. You mean the companions?

Obviously there are going to be dialogue options that trigger an event. If that wasn't the case then there would be no RPG left at all. I and Coldhands point at the nuisances in the dialogue tree. No matter if you annoyed someone in a previous branch the leaf is always going to result in the same message.

[totalrugby]

Oprindeligt skrevet af SimonPunk2077:

Oprindeligt skrevet af Oscillationpoint:

One thing i hope they work on is the bg system where you have to play good/evil to match your good/evil party. I think having disparity in alignment with your party, but working to keep them working as a team could be engaging if done the right way. Being a good shepard of evil cats could be pretty amusing for a playthrough.

As I recall the older Baldur's Gate games primarily achieved this through a global Reputation system. BG3 has individual companion approval, which can be maddening with the current companions, as they often disapprove of helping people, or accepting quests, or even saving children. I dislike all of them who do so, thus the only exceptions being Wyll and Gale. The other companions are indeed stressful and troublesome, I do not enjoy them. I greatly look forward to gaining the ability to create a fully Good-aligned party with newer, nicer companions.

Yea BG 1 and 2 used a reputation system, but it did run into some problems. First it was largely dicated by gold. Evil Characters could use gold to increase rep. Second, especially in the case of BG 1, it ended up being a little to harsh. If you were evil flaming fist would show up, and if you killed one this lead to an even more massive rep hit and more showing up. BG 2 improved this a bit by allowing more leeway, but again it did have some issues since every time you completed a quest you got positive rep "points" so even if you were a evil party, you might end up a perfect 20 good aligned because you had done so many side quests. Unless you just went out murdering random folks to lower it back down. Since the story of BG 2 relied on rep that led to issues as well.

I think companion rep is fine, I just think it needs some fine tuning. I prefer it over the red/blue Mass Effect system.

[Spritefall]

Oprindeligt skrevet af totalrugby:

Yea BG 1 and 2 used a reputation system, but it did run into some problems. First it was largely dicated by gold. Evil Characters could use gold to increase rep. Second, especially in the case of BG 1, it ended up being a little to harsh. If you were evil flaming fist would show up, and if you killed one this lead to an even more massive rep hit and more showing up. BG 2 improved this a bit by allowing more leeway, but again it did have some issues since every time you completed a quest you got positive rep "points" so even if you were a evil party, you might end up a perfect 20 good aligned because you had done so many side quests. Unless you just went out murdering random folks to lower it back down. Since the story of BG 2 relied on rep that led to issues as well.

I think companion rep is fine, I just think it needs some fine tuning. I prefer it over the red/blue Mass Effect system.

Thank you. I hope either an adjustment in approval triggers or an expanded cast with more Good-aligned and nicer companions, particularly Good-aligned and nicer female companions, will alleviate the current issues I have with the game's characters.

[Coldhands]

Oprindeligt skrevet af totalrugby:

Everyone has an opinion, and while I enjoy the game of BG 3 there are games with better writing, but while I enjoy Fallout New Vegas, I would never put Pillars of Eternity 2 up as a example of excellent writing. Maybe Pillars 1, for the time it came out in, but honestly I beat POE 2 twice and I can barely think of any aspect that was well written. Not the quests, not the companions, maybe the reactivity based on class/race/ability choices.

Well, we'll have to agree to disagree on that. I love the writing in PoE2.
The thing I appreciated most was how Deadfire made my character feel special and important without making them some kind of Gary Stew chosen one, and how I almost always had a dialogue option that mirrored my personal feelings about what was going on pretty well.
I think RPG writing that can make the player naturally feel a certain way about what's being presented to them, and then provide dialogue options that cater to that mindset is a pretty rare and impressive talent when it comes to video games, but Obsidian's games have always managed that for me.