This game is baffling

[Verenti]

I have so many questions about so many questionable choices. Why can't you customise the origin characters at the start of the game? If it's going to be my main character and I can change it once I get Withers, then why restrict it at the start of the game? Why did they spend so much time on class/race reactivity and neglect to put in very basic quest reactivity? Why would you put a character in this game, solely for the fan-service and then... recast the character's voice? Why would you put the songs from Rivallon in the game and then lock them behind Bards (Perform isn't exclusive to them and they have no mechanical benefit?) Why would you make the Deluxe Edition items so low effort? They're mostly useless. Why would you make humans objectively awful with, if you wanted to get rid of Racial ASI, just gone with the variant human? I feel like we've been steadily lied to for the past months about how this game is revolutionary and... it isn't. The writing and reactivity is actually pretty trash, to be honest. The characters are barely likeable-- Maybe there was a reason why BG1 + 2 have like 20 companions each instead of like 6. Because it's easier for people to find characters they like and want to keep around.

This whole game is just... ugh...

[Verenti]

Originally posted by Velmarg:

Originally posted by Verenti:

And you could have played a Half-Orc Wizard without an 18 INT to start and do just fine. However, that got adjusted to make sure that no-one would have to whine about playing a character without being hyperoptimised. Coupled with the comments early in development of the devs complaining that most people only wanted to play Human Fighters, it's not surprising.

Honestly, it can't be had both ways. Either the races are balanced and people can play what they want without it affecting their gameplay adversely, or we can't. Making only some races optimal is just lazy.

It just seems like you're totally hung up on the most minor complaints under the sun. I'm playing a Human and it feels totally fine. I don't care if it's slightly less powerful than the others. I really don't. And even if I did, it wouldn't utterly break the experience for me as it appears to be doing for you.

Expectations of Integrity and principles and that people act intellectually consistent is hardly the most minor thing. "Rightly to be great is not to stir without great argument but greatly to find quarrel in a straw, when honor's at the stake."

[Verenti]

Originally posted by Helck:

I too have a question about a questionable choice: what do you mean by ugh...? You do not seem lazy about giving your opinions but at the climax of your thoughts you choose to give an onomatopoeic conclusion. Just say what you wanna say.

I mean the game is tedious in part stemming from the baffling choices. And one can use tools like onomatopoeia to add emotional nuance to writing. "Ugh" is something people frequently say when they are experiencing frustration. "... ugh" expressed this idea much more succinctly than "This game is a constant source of frustration due, in part but not limited to, the above listed reasons."

[Verenti]

Originally posted by Honey Drake:

the only thing I dislike is not having the ability to create your own partner and being forced to use some origin one instead.

Like other party members? That is weird, especially because they could have organically put that in when you get access to the hirelings, ala Owlcat's Pathfinder games. I agree.

[Jinxster]

Originally posted by Wizardmon:

I was really looking forward to this game, and still plan on playing a lot of it. But I really dislike all of the companions personalities/class choices/looks.

Why is it the only origin story that allows me to change class/looks is the dinosaur man with some emo "I gotta kill everything!" backstory?? Who would opt into that?

U can change class pretty quickly so this is not an issue. Story wise sure that can't be changed.

[Verenti]

Originally posted by Boss:

Originally posted by Verenti:

And you could have played a Half-Orc Wizard without an 18 INT to start and do just fine. However, that got adjusted to make sure that no-one would have to whine about playing a character without being hyperoptimised.

This has frustrated me in DnD for a while, when the so-called "roleplayers" (who offensively misuse the term) talk about how "min-maxing is terrible and you shouldn't do it and it's not what the game is about and blah blah blah", but then in the same breath say they don't wanna play a race if it doesn't have the perfect ability boost for their class.

I know, right? 5e is such a forgiving game and... honestly, the only game that really requires min-mixed stats is 3e. 1e and 2e, ability scores weren't super important. 5e, you can do just fine with weird stats.

It's so frustrating how this just guides everything to that optimal path and in the end, people are just playing the same three exploit builds.

[GrugIsRock]

Originally posted by Yale:

Originally posted by ManureTruck:

Imagine millenial-writer syndrome (single adult female, mid-30s, no children, 4+ cats, small apartment) but scaled back and almost good. Thats what these characters are. Larian did their best. There just aren't a lot of good RPG writers out there anymore. They are all Joss Whedon wannabes who think the only interesting character archetypes are "girlboss" (even for males) or "dark brooding mysterious man."

Within that modern framework of writers/writing trends, Larian actually did a decent job reigning the bullsh1t in.

There's no problem finding decent writers, but Larian are apparently very pleased with the Skyrim-wannabe writing.

Please skyrim had better writing. Remember the Giga chad Ulfric, this game has zero masculine characters.

[CiZerin]

Originally posted by Velmarg:

Humans aren't "objectively" awful - I'm running a human paladin on Tactician and having a blast.

wow.... you understand, that in that case Human doesn't add anything to your Paladin class (Paladin allready has Martial Weapons Proficiencies and all type Armor Proficiencies), right? I mean all it does is human "skin" and 25% more weight (what is pointless because you can teleport things to your camp anyway). At this state even useless Dragonborn would be better choise because at least it adds something to your class...

[Blame]

Ya'll really ought to look around a bit before complaining and whining. Sheehs.

Can't customize origin characters because it messes with their dialogue options and makes their cut scenes make no sense.
You can respec them later, though, to allow people to have those characters in their team (if they like the characters), while also having a team composition that they prefer. For example one might really like Shadowheart, but does not want to play a cleric in the team, so respecing allows you to fix that, with the caviat that I mentioned above.
Now, why not allow to customize them from the start? So it doesn't incentivize new players from picking an origin character and just change customize their class, thus unkowingly ruining the story narrative for themselves.

Wdym quest reactivity?

What character are you talking about having their voice changed?

Bards play music.
Playing music has a an actual gameplay effect; a very powerful effect, that is.
You can learn to play an instrument through a feat if you're not a Bard.

Deluxe Edition items are not meant to be P2W, they're meant to be nice looking. A "thank you" for supporting the game. They're there just to look good.

Humans could be better, but they're not "objectively awful". Gale can be equipped with light armor and a halberd, for example ;)

No lies were told.

Heck, you count 6 companions... Just from the top of my head I can think of 10 companions, and I know for a fact that there are more than that. You just have to find them throughout the game, and also make the right choices for them to join you. Because, depending on your choices, they might not want to join you. Or, heck, you might even kill them without ever knowing that they were potential companions. How's that for reactivity?
Also, the characters are meant to be their own personas with their own ambitions and goals, their own lives that they were dragged out from and inserted in to the same situation as the rest of you, lives that they want to get back to. Perhaps you don't like them, but they are not meant to be pandered towards the PC. They are meant to have personality, even if you won't like everything about them. Maybe you'd soften up a bit to them if you bothered to get to know them, though.

[Velmarg]

Originally posted by Verenti:

Originally posted by Velmarg:

It just seems like you're totally hung up on the most minor complaints under the sun. I'm playing a Human and it feels totally fine. I don't care if it's slightly less powerful than the others. I really don't. And even if I did, it wouldn't utterly break the experience for me as it appears to be doing for you.

Expectations of Integrity and principles and that people act intellectually consistent is hardly the most minor thing. "Rightly to be great is not to stir without great argument but greatly to find quarrel in a straw, when honor's at the stake."

It is the most minor thing when the core gaming experience we respond to as we play it remains rock-solid and enjoyable. You seem to be hung up entirely on "I was told this, and then they did THIS" with little comment on the actual experience of playing the game.

Except in terms of the writing quality where you commented, where again, I'd ask the question - show me an RPG of this breadth and scope with better writing and characterization than what little most of us have seen by now of Baldur's Gate 3. Mind, you didn't just say isn't good or was average - you referred to it as "trash" which in mind is just plain silly, but you're entitled to you opinion - I'm just hoping you're capable of defending it.

Again, your word, not mine - and we both know this is going to win every award under the sun this year for everything including and especially writing.

[CiZerin]

Originally posted by Velmarg:

show me an RPG of this breadth and scope with better writing and characterization than what little most of us have seen by now of Baldur's Gate 3.

Pillars of Eternity

[Verenti]

Originally posted by Helck:

Originally posted by Verenti:

And one can use tools like onomatopoeia to add emotional nuance to writing.

Yeah, I know that.

Originally posted by Verenti:

"This game is a constant source of frustration"

Fair enough, thats what I wanted to know. As you can see by the absence of a mouse icon I still have not bought the game, but I do like to read all kinds of opinions before making my mind. I'm kinda skeptical so I'll do that even if the game is super popular and almost everyone is saying is good.

I apologise if I was rude. I'm taking a fair bit of flack here and I might have been too defensive.

[catbehind]

Originally posted by CiZerin:

Originally posted by Velmarg:

show me an RPG of this breadth and scope with better writing and characterization than what little most of us have seen by now of Baldur's Gate 3.

Pillars of Eternity

delusions on full display here
Deadfire has some great writing, first Pillars are a gem in its own right but the writing is very "generic fantasy novel" with occasional moments of brilliance

[Verenti]

Originally posted by CiZerin:

Originally posted by Velmarg:

show me an RPG of this breadth and scope with better writing and characterization than what little most of us have seen by now of Baldur's Gate 3.

Pillars of Eternity

Certainly. If you want to go a little further in the past, Arcanum, despite its flaws, certainly had an expansive world with a tonne of reactivity.

BG3's world is actually really really small compared to other RPGs. In terms of scale, it's the smallest of all the Baldur's Gates by far. I say this as someone who is nearly done the game. The maps that are here are very, very dense, but that's to off set that there are only a few zones and those, like DOS2, cannot be freely travelled between. Once you get to act 3, you are in Baldur's Gate. There isn't any going back to earlier areas. Baldur's Gate is tiny in compared to BG1.

BG3 is very small and very linear. If you compare it to most RPGs coming out of the Black Isle/Obsidian/Troika tradition of RPG, and to some extent Bioware, if you look at scope and reactivity, then BG3 is... severely lacking.

If anyone disagrees with me, I welcome their position. I certainly am not trying to invalidate anyone's experience with the game by sharing my own. However, I will say that in time, I think that people will see this game as I do. This is my experience in the past with people gradually seeing what I did at the beginning when they are at the end. Forgive me if that sounds pompous. Baldur's Gate 3 is not a once in a generational game that many believe it to be.

[Verenti]

Originally posted by catbehind:

Originally posted by CiZerin:

Pillars of Eternity

delusions on full display here
Deadfire has some great writing, first Pillars are a gem in its own right but the writing is very "generic fantasy novel" with occasional moments of brilliance

I disagree. Pillars was brilliant beneath a veneer of generic fantasy novel. The ideas set forth in that game was rather grand and that they wrote the game to accommodate a variety of different personalities has great because it meant that you often had lines you wanted to say. That the world would then react to those choices-- both positively and negatively was quite clever.

And the implications of the story were fantastic.

[CiZerin]

Originally posted by catbehind:

Originally posted by CiZerin:

Pillars of Eternity

delusions on full display here
Deadfire has some great writing, first Pillars are a gem in its own right but the writing is very "generic fantasy novel" with occasional moments of brilliance

PoE generic fantasy novel still better than BG3 tales from twitter