(SPOILERS) The end ruined the entire game for me

[Shredder]

I'm so disappointed. I don't understand how you can do so bad when there was so much promises. up to the end the entire game was fun, full of choices I was glad Larian thought about. it felt like playing DND 5th edition.

The worst sin you can do as a Dongeon master is:
1. Nullify a natural 20 because you wanted the story to go a certain way, thus robbing your players of a impossible odds victory. NEVER DO THAT.
2. Create a Character along side your players because you wished you could play instead of DMing, so at the end he steal all the glory. if you decide to tell your DM to go ♥♥♥♥ himself with his NPC, he immediately joins the villains. NEVER DO THAT.

You did both in the span of 2 min.
(SPOILERS)
The specifics: IDK if it's "scripted" if it is it's stupid, don't make me roll then, you're supposed to roll 99 to dominate the brain, I rolled a Nat 20, IDK if everyone rolls a nat 20 and fails anyway, but you don't do that to a player. that's bad DMing.

Ultimately the emperor is not more important than my PC, and altho he keeps stressing me that I can thrust him, he's a mind flayer, I don't want to give him the netherstones, I don't want to turn into a mindflayer, trust me back and let's find a solution. so my only choice was to see what the hell Orpheus had to say in all this. the second you pick that choice the emperor goes "I have no choice but to join the bad guys bye!" and he dips into a portal. Really dude? good thing I didn't trust you if you react like a child and betray me in 2 seconds. and Then Orpheus turns into a mindflayer. I saved . I quit. I'm not gonna play the end. I doubt it will happen but the entire ending needs to be reworked with all the choices that was there before, where's my monk seeking balance ending?

[Lamiosa]

Cyberpunk 2077 endings are way more worse: No matter what you do, you will die anyway, either getting taken over, die and get into a server-prison or die after 6 months. So the choice between being a an evil ruler and the different variants of saving the people are much better endings.

[steelcoresoviet]

While the ending commits a lot of sins, the worst part to me is That Orpheus, a creature that is feared by a quasi-deity, and has dedicated his entire life to fighting the grand design- suddenly buckles under and becomes an abomination rather than just harness thousands of years of hate and brute forces through the elder brainwaves.

I don't mind that he (probably) dies, I mind that there's not a crowning moment of Orpheus in all his glory kicking ghaik ass.

[echoes222]

Originally posted by Lamiosa:

Cyberpunk 2077 endings are way more worse: No matter what you do, you will die anyway, either getting taken over, die and get into a server-prison or die after 6 months. So the choice between being a an evil ruler and the different variants of saving the people are much better endings.

actually, Cyberpunk storytelling and endings are far more superior to BG3. You were dying regardless, that's it. You have a choice how this will happen tho. BG3 endings are a joke when compared to CP.

[Tootsy]

Remember when they give you a game over for killing the emperor early because you lose his 'protection" but conveniently you are fine when he leaves at the end game?

and yes forcing a player to roll on an event they will lose no matter what they roll so they can be saved by the DM npc is a really horrible DM move.

[AncientsLegacy]

Originally posted by steelcoresoviet:

While the ending commits a lot of sins, the worst part to me is That Orpheus, a creature that is feared by a quasi-deity, and has dedicated his entire life to fighting the grand design- suddenly buckles under and becomes an abomination rather than just harness thousands of years of hate and brute force through the elder brainwaves.

I don't mind that he (probably) dies, I mind that there's not a crowning moment of Orpheus in all his glory kicking ghaik ass.

The power Oprheus has is inherited from his mother, it is supposed to be strong enough to overthrow the entire Illithid empire with tons of elder brains. Him failing like that is just ridiculous.

[Lamiosa]

Originally posted by echoes222:

Originally posted by Lamiosa:

Cyberpunk 2077 endings are way more worse: No matter what you do, you will die anyway, either getting taken over, die and get into a server-prison or die after 6 months. So the choice between being a an evil ruler and the different variants of saving the people are much better endings.

actually, Cyberpunk storytelling and endings are far more superior to BG3. You were dying regardless, that's it. You have a choice how this will happen tho. BG3 endings are a joke when compared to CP.

As someone told me how Cyberpunk 2077 would end, I stopped playing and never touched it again. The "you will die anyway" plot is the worse devs can do.

[echoes222]

Originally posted by Lamiosa:

Originally posted by echoes222:

actually, Cyberpunk storytelling and endings are far more superior to BG3. You were dying regardless, that's it. You have a choice how this will happen tho. BG3 endings are a joke when compared to CP.

As someone told me how Cyberpunk 2077 would end, I stopped playing and never touched it again. The "you will die anyway" plot is the worse devs can do.

some stories don't need a happy ending, and if you don't want that kind of story that's fine. But CP endings aren't illogical, broken and just simply bad, like the ones in BG3. That's the difference.

[Jormungandr]

It sounds like you have a problem with characters in the story rather than the story itself. The emperor acted like a dickwad that's fine, it isn't indicative of bad storytelling.

Plus, dominating the elder brain like that sounds pretty stupid so I support Larian's decision on that. In all honesty, just shielding against the elder brain is a big feat already and dominating him took 3 BBEGs, so just a single person doing that sounds like Mary Sue moment (it is similar to beating Vlakith in a single 1v1 duel, sounds super dumb and very Mary Sue-ish). I didn't play dnd though, so I am very cold to the idea of a dm respecting the dice roll and I don't get that tbh.

[Jormungandr]

Originally posted by Lamiosa:

Cyberpunk 2077 endings are way more worse: No matter what you do, you will die anyway, either getting taken over, die and get into a server-prison or die after 6 months. So the choice between being a an evil ruler and the different variants of saving the people are much better endings.

Cyberpunk approached the theme of mortality with surprising amount of maturity so I'm very glad they didn't give a way out to V bc the game was all about what you leave behind after death and how to live a life in a meaningful and happy way and a lot of that would be lost if V had a way to cure his disease.

[ACS36]

You don't even need to finish the game reach the conclusion you're talking about.

The game plays like it's being run by an inexperienced DM from the get go. It's pretty obvious to more perceptive players. I had to stop playing during act 2 because of the way the entire story and world was being presented. It's just a terrible story all around and the player is clearly being rail roaded in a few different ways.

The story is just bad and the game does a poor job in the presentation of the threats in the world.

Many players are mislead to believe that interacting with goblins as if they' aren't sadistic murdering machines makes sense because of the mind parasite, but in reality you should want to run away from them or kill them if you're not blatantly evil yourself. Walking around the entire game pretending to belong every where because you're a 'true soul' really ruins the entire experience of the game and diminishes role playing opportunity. You aren't being clever for doing this. The villains are more than willing to accept it at face value relatively easily.

The story is all around atrocious and doesn't really have much variety when you see what's under the hood.

[Lamiosa]

Originally posted by Jormungandr:

Originally posted by Lamiosa:

Cyberpunk 2077 endings are way more worse: No matter what you do, you will die anyway, either getting taken over, die and get into a server-prison or die after 6 months. So the choice between being a an evil ruler and the different variants of saving the people are much better endings.

Cyberpunk approached the theme of mortality with surprising amount of maturity so I'm very glad they didn't give a way out to V bc the game was all about what you leave behind after death and how to live a life in a meaningful and happy way and a lot of that would be lost if V had a way to cure his disease.

Then take it as personal oppinion, that I dislike games where the MC has to die no matter what she/he tries. I know it is a distopian world, but I neither like the message "you will die anyway", nor the plot in general.

[Shredder]

I really wish the convo didn't steer toward Cyberpunk, but the whole game prepares you, that you're probly gonna die, and the "choices" before the end, that we can compared to what I typed about BG3 is essentially, Trust Arasoka, Trust Johnny and Rogue, Trust Panam, Go out alone like a FN legend. and all those choices were fun to make and see through.

The core of my complaint is not based on "video game trope" but "Dongeons and Dragons 5th Edition" tropes. don't nullify a 20. (the equivalent in Cyberpunk would be that adam smashers lives no matter what) Dont make an NPC more important than a player. (if some Random guy fought Adam Smasher instead of you and you're just there for support) I don't think Cyberpunk failed what they set to do, like BG3 fails at making a good DND end campaign

[Tootsy]

Originally posted by Jormungandr:

It sounds like you have a problem with characters in the story rather than the story itself. The emperor acted like a dickwad that's fine, it isn't indicative of bad storytelling.

Plus, dominating the elder brain like that sounds pretty stupid so I support Larian's decision on that. In all honesty, just shielding against the elder brain is a big feat already and dominating him took 3 BBEGs, so just a single person doing that sounds like Mary Sue moment (it is similar to beating Vlakith in a single 1v1 duel, sounds super dumb and very Mary Sue-ish). I didn't play dnd though, so I am very cold to the idea of a dm respecting the dice roll and I don't get that tbh.

You had three stones, there was no reason your character had to be the sole one attempting to dominate the brain.

1 for Gale with 20 intelligence
1 for Shadowheart with 20 wisdom
1 for Tav with 20 charisma

This also means you would have been attacking the Elder brain from multiple avenues.

[KingOfFriedChicken]

Originally posted by Lamiosa:

Cyberpunk 2077 endings are way more worse: No matter what you do, you will die anyway, either getting taken over, die and get into a server-prison or die after 6 months. So the choice between being a an evil ruler and the different variants of saving the people are much better endings.

The dlc makes it sound like you can change that in cyberpunk, can't promise it but sounded like it lol, but honestly why do people hate that? It's clear your going to always, and honestly I loved it personally, so many games plot armor your way out of death and finally a game thay doesn't and people are upsetty spaghetti!

Same with this bg3 ending, I love the tough choice and the 4 rolls including 99 arnt pointless each offers a buff in the coming fight, the 99 one drops his hp by 10% I heard.

However they are planning on making some changes to the story already including karlachs ending, so over they might make one some people are more happy with then others but I didn't hate the ending.

[Eldril Sidewinder]

All criticism aside, you missed an epic fight to finish the game. It's worth playing until the end. (I just finished it).