Not a Popular Opinion - but BG3 is actually not as open as people say

[Khârn]

So, I got myself into Act 2, went through all the moonrise stuff, got to the town, killed the evil angel guy, saved the mage woman, went deep into the trials, threw the fat necromancer guy to his doom, saved the angel woman, went to the tower, fought with J.K Simmons - he ran away, now I have to follow him and there are some tenticles or some crap.

I stopped and thought to myself - I feel like I am on a rail that I can't get off. I'm being forced through the plot battles and can't really explore how I want to. I went from enjoying the game to not wanting to play it at all.

Act 1 had some freedom. I could do most of the quests however I wanted. I could choose the order I did them. I could take a break and wander off and do something completely different. I could even skip some quests that I didn't feel like competing (oh...what a mistake that was)

However Act2 is so very much on a rail. You must go from A - B - C - D - E.
Now, you can argue that you need to move the plot along, and that's fine, but one big issue I discovered is that you MUST complete ALL the side quests. You simply MUST do it, or else you end up in the situation that I found myself in where you are too low a level to get through certain battles. Strategy will only take you so far.

I thought I'd completed most of the quests in Act 1. I certainly completed every side quest I came across. I went the Underdark route and just hated the environment, so passed through it quickly. I thought this would be fine and wouldn't cause me any issues later.

I don't know what quests I missed in the Underdark, but I got through it with a level 6 party.

In moonrise I did some of the main quests and saw a fair few side quests, but I thought to myself "I'll come back and do those later" ...a big mistake.

When I got to invading the Moonrise Tower, I found that being level 6 was actually so under level that it was almost impossible to do. The side quests I thought I'd come and do later were now not possible, and now that I had progressed the plot I was now blocked from going back and completing sidequests elsewhere. Those quests I was going to do later were now gone.

I was essentially trapped in moonrise towers area with no way to grind for xp and no way to level up. Out of desperation, I looked at guides and made sure that I completed every single sidequest in moonrise, but it was not enough to boost my level.

So while there is this impression that you can play the game however you want, you really can't. You will be massively under levelled unless you actively search out and complete every quest in the earlier acts.

If you don't complete quests in a certain order, ensuring that sidequests are all completed before continuing with various stages of the main questline, you find yourself locked out of a great deal of content.

This is all fine, it's a design and story choice. But what it actually does is remove a great deal of freedom from how you approach the game. You have far more freedom in games such a The Witcher series or even Cyberpunk. It's not often that going from Main Quest 6 to Main Quest 7 will suddenly lock out 5 sidequests. As someone who played BG1 and BG2 a lot, I never ran into this problem.
But this is what happened in BG3.

I now have zero interest in chasing J.K Simmons and finishing him off. All that will happen is that I will then be forced into more battles, one after another, that I am ill able to fight due to my level, and there is no way for me to grind up my XP because I'm trapped in a linear story and the XP gain doesn't seem to scale well (once you're behind you can't catch up)

My only solution is to go back and start again.

I guess that I feel disappointed that I am essentially punished for playing the game in a casual manner and not grinding XP in every single zone I'm in. I didn't realise that by missing a few quests I would find myself so underpowered that I would struggle to get through the main plot. In most games, completing the main quest chain makes you 'just' powerful enough to keep the story going. Completing side quests give you extra XP and gear to give you an edge. In BG3, if you only do the quest chain, you can't complete the game. OK...possibly you can if you play on easy the whole time. But it certainly feels as though you can't.

Does the game become more free if I get past JK Simmons part 2? Or am I just going to be fighting one battle after another with no way to break away from the plot and try to level myself up?

TLDR; I didn't do enough side quests and now the game isn't fun to play.

[Vixziค็็็็็n]

Originally posted by Gregorovitch:

Originally posted by Vixzian:

BG3 is by no means a good example of an RPG experience where choice *actually* matters in a broad sense. If you mean in terms of you're given choice A or B and one leads you down one path and the other, another. Sure. But by the end it's pretty much the same and the actual paths are extremely few.

I wasn't really referring to endings, I was referring to the countless twists and turns that happen along the way as a result of what you decide to do in countless situations.

I'm about half way through Act 3 now and it is already obvious that there are three or four possible main end points to the story and that the various decisions I've made so far will have more impact on the difficulty of achieving each end point rather than determine which one I take per se.

I count that as plenty of choice and consequence.

How many different endings (I mean major differences, not slight variations) do you think a game like this should have?

They aren't countless. That's more like permutations where you're still just actively making a choice on the ending you want and those endings are a few at best.

That's an illusion. Not only are they not countless they are very few. So those countless twists are really just alternate dialogues that lead down the same paths. I mean try it. Name a path that takes you down more than 2 or 3 max paths and how many of those are just closed at the next fork with the last leading you down that same main pathway?

That isn't to say the story isn't interesting and that the side paths leading to what's (basically) 2 outcomes (because one is basically one of those game over moments and the other is by taking a very specific pathway from the outset), aren't fun. But no there is not plenty of choice and consequence outside of whether or not you keep a companion or not or romance one.

[Orion Invictus]

Originally posted by Vixzian:

Originally posted by Gregorovitch:

I wasn't really referring to endings, I was referring to the countless twists and turns that happen along the way as a result of what you decide to do in countless situations.

I'm about half way through Act 3 now and it is already obvious that there are three or four possible main end points to the story and that the various decisions I've made so far will have more impact on the difficulty of achieving each end point rather than determine which one I take per se.

I count that as plenty of choice and consequence.

How many different endings (I mean major differences, not slight variations) do you think a game like this should have?

They aren't countless. That's more like permutations where you're still just actively making a choice on the ending you want and those endings are a few at best.

That's an illusion. Not only are they not countless they are very few. So those countless twists are really just alternate dialogues that lead down the same paths. I mean try it. Name a path that takes you down more than 2 or 3 max paths and how many of those are just closed at the next fork with the last leading you down that same main pathway?

That isn't to say the story isn't interesting and that the side paths leading to what's (basically) 2 outcomes (because one is basically one of those game over moments and the other is by taking a very specific pathway from the outset), aren't fun. But no there is not plenty of choice and consequence outside of whether or not you keep a companion or not or romance one.

Are you under the impression that this is somehow different from what DMs do?

[Vixziค็็็็็n]

Originally posted by Orion Invictus:

Originally posted by Vixzian:

They aren't countless. That's more like permutations where you're still just actively making a choice on the ending you want and those endings are a few at best.

That's an illusion. Not only are they not countless they are very few. So those countless twists are really just alternate dialogues that lead down the same paths. I mean try it. Name a path that takes you down more than 2 or 3 max paths and how many of those are just closed at the next fork with the last leading you down that same main pathway?

That isn't to say the story isn't interesting and that the side paths leading to what's (basically) 2 outcomes (because one is basically one of those game over moments and the other is by taking a very specific pathway from the outset), aren't fun. But no there is not plenty of choice and consequence outside of whether or not you keep a companion or not or romance one.

Are you under the impression that this is somehow different from what DMs do?

You aren't serious right? You think good table top DMs limit endings to 2 potential outcomes?

[Gregorovitch]

Originally posted by Vixzian:

Originally posted by Gregorovitch:

I wasn't really referring to endings, I was referring to the countless twists and turns that happen along the way as a result of what you decide to do in countless situations.

I'm about half way through Act 3 now and it is already obvious that there are three or four possible main end points to the story and that the various decisions I've made so far will have more impact on the difficulty of achieving each end point rather than determine which one I take per se.

I count that as plenty of choice and consequence.

How many different endings (I mean major differences, not slight variations) do you think a game like this should have?

But can you answer the question:

Originally posted by Gregorovitch:

How many different endings (I mean major differences, not slight variations) do you think a game like this should have?

And also this one which is a good question:

Originally posted by Orion Invictus:

Are you under the impression that this is somehow different from what DMs do?

[Kaisha]

I agree, you go off path and EVERYTHING messes up. I accidentally did that in my first play through, and it broken near everything.

Originally posted by SolidSora:

But often people see this and think "well the game is not open" while completly missing the forest for the trees. This game is a programm at the end of the day with a lot of pieces that only allow for soo much freedom. With regards to those pieces it is impressive HOW MUCH you can do while the world actually reacts to it.

But people dont care. Because its a complicated point to make. Rather then just complaining and not thinking about it more.

No. The problem is it's advertised as an 'open ended' game, but isn't. They tried to have their cake and eat it too, and it failed. You don't have freedom in how you do the major plot points, and even if you do a few bosses out of order it has almost no effect other than the odd throw-away line of dialog.

You're options are always 'fail and everyone dies', 'kill everyone', or 'do it the right way'. It really is a plot on rails.

[&rew]

Originally posted by Kaisha:

No. The problem is it's advertised as an 'open ended' game, but isn't. They tried to have their cake and eat it too, and it failed. You don't have freedom in how you do the major plot points, and even if you do a few bosses out of order it has almost no effect other than the odd throw-away line of dialog.

You're options are always 'fail and everyone dies', 'kill everyone', or 'do it the right way'. It really is a plot on rails.

I'd say it's pretty open ended that I could murder anyone I want or otherwise allow them to die by inaction and the story continues on. That you can ignore entire plot lines and major characters because you weren't interested or didn't know they were there. That the main plot wraps up asymmetrically in a handful of ways, even discounting the fates of those in your party that could each themselves wrap up their own storylines in a handful of ways. I'm not sure how much more open ended you wanted or expected the game to be, but that's pretty open ended in my book.

[Vixziค็็็็็n]

Originally posted by Gregorovitch:

Originally posted by Vixzian:

But can you answer the question:

Originally posted by Gregorovitch:

How many different endings (I mean major differences, not slight variations) do you think a game like this should have?

And also this one which is a good question:

Originally posted by Orion Invictus:

Are you under the impression that this is somehow different from what DMs do?

How is that a good question? AT ALL? No DM I've ever played with nor have I ever myself created anything with only two outcomes at table top. That's ridiculous.

For your first DA:O had 4 true endings despite all the other choices. ME3 had 8 (3 core 2 of which had 2 varations and the other 3 having 3 variations). I think RE could have 6 different endings per character. So my answer would be around 4 endings and an epilogue ffs.

[Kaisha]

Originally posted by &rew:

I'd say it's pretty open ended that I could murder anyone I want or otherwise allow them to die by inaction and the story continues on.

Except it doesn't. It just leaves that whole part of the game gone. Want to murder Gortash in his coronation? You can kill him, then 3 or 4 quest lines just up and disappear. That's not 'open ended'.

In Act 1 you can choose to side with the goblins, or against, them. That's an open ended quest, with meaningful choices, different loot, different companions, etc...

Just disabling/losing entire quest lines that didn't really matter anyways is just lazy.

That the main plot wraps up asymmetrically in a handful of ways, even discounting the fates of those in your party that could each themselves wrap up their own storylines in a handful of ways. I'm not sure how much more open ended you wanted or expected the game to be, but that's pretty open ended in my book.

The main lot wraps the same way. You confront the brain with the 3 stones. You fail. You argue with the Emperor. Then you choose which 'flavor' of squid HAS to accompany you, then you do the final battle, then you see the same ending with just slightly (and often incorrect) differing ending clips.

Chrono Trigger had more endings, and more meaningful choices, and that's like 30y old running on hardware that's less powerful than a modern toaster.

[Vixziค็็็็็n]

Originally posted by Kaisha:

Originally posted by &rew:

I'd say it's pretty open ended that I could murder anyone I want or otherwise allow them to die by inaction and the story continues on.

Except it doesn't. It just leaves that whole part of the game gone. Want to murder Gortash in his coronation? You can kill him, then 3 or 4 quest lines just up and disappear. That's not 'open ended'.

In Act 1 you can choose to side with the goblins, or against, them. That's an open ended quest, with meaningful choices, different loot, different companions, etc...

Just disabling/losing entire quest lines that didn't really matter anyways is just lazy.

That the main plot wraps up asymmetrically in a handful of ways, even discounting the fates of those in your party that could each themselves wrap up their own storylines in a handful of ways. I'm not sure how much more open ended you wanted or expected the game to be, but that's pretty open ended in my book.

The main lot wraps the same way. You confront the brain with the 3 stones. You fail. You argue with the Emperor. Then you choose which 'flavor' of squid HAS to accompany you, then you do the final battle, then you see the same ending with just slightly (and often incorrect) differing ending clips.

Chrono Trigger had more endings, and more meaningful choices, and that's like 30y old running on hardware that's less powerful than a modern toaster.

^ Yep. Thank you.

[Cthulhu]

reaching the end of act 2 doing all the bad choises.
writing in the forum how to make a better game.

[&rew]

Originally posted by Kaisha:

Except it doesn't. It just leaves that whole part of the game gone. Want to murder Gortash in his coronation? You can kill him, then 3 or 4 quest lines just up and disappear. That's not 'open ended'.

In Act 1 you can choose to side with the goblins, or against, them. That's an open ended quest, with meaningful choices, different loot, different companions, etc...

When you remove people from the world, their stories tend to disappear, yes. I'd still call that open ended. Your choices in Act 1 feel meaningful because they keep building on it in subsequent acts, but that's the nature of an ending: you can't keep building on it. You're also putting Chrono Trigger on too much of a pedestal; its endings are most definitely *not* more impressive than this game, though both have planned endings where you can end the game way ahead of time if you're so inclined (Gale Act 2, for instance).

[wagg40k]

I think the whole game is pretty linear. The changes that you make are largely cosmetic throughout the game and only affect which side quests you have access to. the main narrative has several moments where binary narrative options change who is alive and who isn't, but none of it changes the trajectory of the main narrative.

you always end up with the same choices at the very end of the game, and there are only two places where you can end the game at different points - both are just game over states after another binary decision.

BG3 isn't an open ended RPG, it's a theme park with arrows on the floor and a couple of choices on what to see first.

[&rew]

So then what is open ended, if this doesn't count? Because I haven't seen anything that felt more open ended.

[Kaisha]

Originally posted by &rew:

When you remove people from the world, their stories tend to disappear, yes. I'd still call that open ended.

No one would call that 'open ended'. Every quest in pretty much every game that has ever had quests can be 'failed'. In most games that's a 'game over' screen but in many others you simply do not get the rewards and/or finish the storyline. No one calls that 'open ended'.

Your choices in Act 1 feel meaningful because they keep building on it in subsequent acts, but that's the nature of an ending: you can't keep building on it.

Act 2 is not the end of the game, nor is the beginning of Act 3. And the Act 1 choices feel meaningful because they are. It's not just a 'you lose Halsin/loot' choice. When you side with the Goblins you get Minthara and other options.

You're also putting Chrono Trigger on too much of a pedestal; its endings are most definitely *not* more impressive than this game

Because standing around on a dock reciting 3 lines and disappearing was impressive? The 'party at the camp' bit after killing the Goblins was a better ending (and that was just 1/2 way through Act 1) than what we got at the end of Act 3.

[wagg40k]

Originally posted by &rew:

So then what is open ended, if this doesn't count? Because I haven't seen anything that felt more open ended.

An open ended RPG is one that makes character development possible with or without the main narrative. In an open ended RPG you could potentially never touch the main story before exploring the world and completely developing your character.

Kingdom Come: Deliverance
Cyberpunk 2077
Dragon's Dogma
Fallout: New Vegas
Witcher 3

^ those are open ended RPGs.

BG3 is a theme park with three sections to help keep the crowds organized.

Chrono Trigger set the standard for multiple endings, but it is not an open ended RPG. It is closer to BG3 in this regard - each time epoch is an "act".

But Chrono Trigger benefits from an open WORLD that you can explore and get lost in and lose track of things in. BG3 puts you on a track with a couple of opportunities to pick left or right. You can go back and forth between epochs as you please without any penalties in Chrono Trigger.

People put Chrono Trigger on a pedestal because it's one of the best RPGs of all time.