All of the endings feel Unsatisfying.

[NineChameleon]

TLDR: The endings are almost universally unsatisfying unless you're playing strictly good. And Dark Urge is the most extreme example of this. Cleverness and outside the box thinking aren't rewarded.

Yeah.... I've finished the game a few times now and feel pretty confident saying this.
Lae'zel gets the best ending out of everyone, which is hardly surprising.

But the endings in general just feel unsatisfying unless you play 100% good all the way through. Out of everyone, Dark Urge is the most egregious in this I feel. If you play a "good" urge. It's fine. But as soon as you try to be clever about it.... it all falls apart. Like the devs want to punish you if you don't make the right choice at the one single opportunity you get.

Because there *is* an objectively right choice.

idk if the endings are a victim of cut content. But if they are... well I can't help but wish we'd needed to wait another year to get the original intended experience.

Elaboration on what I mean about Dark Urge aka There be spoilers ahead:

The only "good" ending for urge is if you reject Bhaal in the temple. If you accept him and then betray him later, no divine intervention to help you. You either have to kill yourself or you get taken over by Bhaal. Your personality suppressed or erased. They even change the after credits scene to justify it. Normally Withers/Jergal says the dead three are no longer gods. But if you do this ending he doesn't say that anymore. All to justify Bhaal being able to screw the player over one last time. Maybe I overthought it. I don't know. But Urge was my second playthrough and I came up with this plan under the assumption that Bhaal, no longer a god, wouldn't be able to take his revenge. The Idea being to trick him into divesting a good portion of his power into you so that you could challenge him in the end. Would've been a better ending than what we got.

[Fluff]

I finished the game thrice and I find endings satisfying. More epilgogues showcase would be nice, since a lot of people don't understand consequences of all actions unless they are shoved into their face. But it's also nice to watch back. And Avernus expansion in future would be cool. But I am happy with how it ends outside of that.

[NineChameleon]

Originally posted by StepBroccoli:

I finished the game thrice and I find endings satisfying. More epilgogues showcase would be nice, since a lot of people don't understand consequences of all actions unless they are shoved into their face. But it's also nice to watch back. And Avernus expansion in future would be cool. But I am happy with how it ends outside of that.

to each their own.

Most of this is disappointment of me coming of a dark urge run that was very fun right up until the ending.

My first run through was solo and I did the "evil" ending. It was semi satisfying but not for the reasons it should've been. It was only satisfying because I got to say "F U" to the game world after some serious struggle moments.

This game makes me think of Dragon Age Origins and Pillars of Eternity. Which are probably an unfair comparisons when it comes to endings. Since those two have some of the best imho

[Pan Darius Cassandra]

Well, there's a couple things going on here.

• Humans in general aren't very good at writing from the perspective of 'evil' because we are inherently biased towards 'good', even if our subjective ideas aout what 'good' is changes from person to person.

• Larian wanted to write a plot about illithids, WotC wanted them to write a plot about the Bhaalspawn. This split focus dilutes both, and is a clear example of "too many cooks in the kitchen". Neither plot really receives the full attention ot deserves and trying to cram both in likely contributed to the excessive workload that prevented Larian from finishing everything and all the cut content besides.

• Larian themselves aren't the most amazing writers. As far as video game developers go, they aren't bad, and are better than most, but this doesn't say much because most video game writers are terrible. They are programmers. They know how to bring stuff to life on your screen, not how to write a compelling story. Just look at Chris Roberts attempts to break into Hollywood (Wing Commander, etc...although Lord of War wasn't half bad, he only co-directed it).

• Larian pretends there are a ton of paths/permutations you can take, but in truth you are heavily penalized (with less content) for doing anything except what they want you to do. This is likely unintentional on their part, just a byproduct of their subconscious bias.

[NineChameleon]

Originally posted by Pan Darius Loveless:

Well, there's a couple things going on here.

• Humans in general aren't very good at writing from the perspective of 'evil' because we are inherently biased towards 'good', even if our subjective ideas aout what 'good' is changes from person to person.

• Larian wanted to write a plot about illithids, WotC wanted them to write a plot about the Bhaalspawn. This split focus dilutes both, and is a clear example of "too many cooks in the kitchen". Neither plot really receives the full attention ot deserves and trying to cram both in likely contributed to the excessive workload that prevented Larian from finishing everything and all the cut content besides.

• Larian themselves aren't the most amazing writers. As far as video game developers go, they aren't bad, and are better than most, but this doesn't say much because most video game writers are terrible. They are programmers. They know how to bring stuff to life on your screen, not how to write a compelling story. Just look at Chris Roberts attempts to break into Hollywood (Wing Commander, etc...although Lord of War wasn't half bad, he only co-directed it).

• Larian pretends there are a ton of paths/permutations you can take, but in truth you are heavily penalized (with less content) for doing anything except what they want you to do. This is likely unintentional on their part, just a byproduct of their subconscious bias.

I find myself agreeing with all your points. And finding myself facing down yet another personal dilemma of breaking into authorship myself XD someting i've always wanted to do.

It's unfortunate. This game has so much potential that feels wasted. I still like the game, but act 3 is for sure the weakest narrative-wise

[shogunsmurf]

Is this going to be an other, massive setup but then some rushed boss battle ending like Inquisition ? because i'm not gathering a army for nothing again I hope :(

[NineChameleon]

Originally posted by shogunsmurf:

Is this going to be an other, massive setup but then some rushed boss battle ending like Inquisition ? because i'm not gathering a army for nothing again I hope :(

I'd say its better than inquisition and the boss fight is at least satisfying to do. But how satisfying your ending is depends on how you played the game I think. If you're playing as a straight up good guy you'll probably be fine.

[grab these bandages]

Playing as lawful good i dint like endings much too. You dont get any changes at the end fully refusing to consume specimens, even worse, you cant just destroy them like astral one.
Endings are railroaded to the end with only 2 choices and Orpheus dialogue upon freeing him is dumb as f. And overall ending in BG3 feels like ME3, just half done mess with not answered questions.
Hope one day Larian will completely rewrite this part of the game.

[Fluff]

Originally posted by Pan Darius Loveless:

• Humans in general aren't very good at writing from the perspective of 'evil' because we are inherently biased towards 'good'.

That's the most naive thing I heard in a while haha.

[Pan Darius Cassandra]

Originally posted by StepBroccoli:

Originally posted by Pan Darius Loveless:

• Humans in general aren't very good at writing from the perspective of 'evil' because we are inherently biased towards 'good'.

That's the most naive thing I heard in a while haha.

No, it isn't.

[Beast of War]

I felt Gale exploding the brain ( and with that ascending to Mysta's side again ) a worthy ending.

I also felt Lea'zel taking off on a dragon to free her people of Vlaakith a worthy ending also.

The rest...not so much. I can live with Wyl and Karlach going together to the hells, but i rather had you can repair her engine with the TONS of infernal metal you find in game !!!

I haven't seen an ending with Shadowheart as a Dark Justicicar yet. I am about to see that in a few weeks on Tactician. And in my pre-patch playthrougs Minthara and Halsin were dead like fish with any interaction or story ( back then you could have them both without use of mods )

Jaheira and Minsc had ( have ) no story ending also.

[NineChameleon]

Originally posted by StepBroccoli:

Originally posted by Pan Darius Loveless:

• Humans in general aren't very good at writing from the perspective of 'evil' because we are inherently biased towards 'good'.

That's the most naive thing I heard in a while haha.

It's really not wrong though. The number of evil stories that either devolve into comical villainy of still have a good redemption ending is quite high. Besides, humans are always finding new levels of low. The constantly shifting boundaries makes writing true evil a constant catching up exercise. Or at best, an uncanny-valley of a real life person.

[Fluff]

Originally posted by NineChameleon:

It's really not wrong though.

It is absolutely wrong. I am talking about "humans biased towards good" and not about writing.

That's how kids are tought by mass media and government (that doesn't give a F about what's good or lives of any people, but money and power, no exceptions). "good and bad" and "humanity is good" that's what I thought may be 20 years ago if not more untill obtained more knowledge about a lot of things in the world on different levels (personal and experience of others + knowledge in free access) and it's a nice way to show how naive a person is and how young.

And writing - people want to hear that they are "good", even if they are full of sh*t which quite a lot are. But some people fight their own sh*t, while most are enjoying it, eating it and throw it onto others. Easy as that. No need for high level psychology.

[NineChameleon]

Originally posted by StepBroccoli:

Originally posted by NineChameleon:

It's really not wrong though.

It is absolutely wrong. I am talking about "humans biased towards good" and not about writing.

That's how kids are tought by mass media and government (that doesn't give a F about what's good or lives of any people, but money and power, no exceptions). "good and bad" and "humanity is good" that's what I thought may be 20 years ago if not more untill obtained more knowledge about a lot of things in the world on different levels (personal and experience of others + knowledge in free access) and it's a nice way to show how naive a person is and how young.

I think pan was talking about in reference to writing though. Not in general. People are a mixed bag if we're talking away from the page. Everyone's values away from the page are mostly informed by where they live and what they're taught as you say.

In writing however, there seems to be a bias towards "good guys". As in, it's somewhat easier to write because no matter the culture, writing a character that is good is something we're conditioned to do... and less likely to result in your book/work being banned from publication... Even in more liberal countries where creative works are less likely to be restricted, the concept of "evil" is still heavily sanitised to make it palatable for general audiences.

For instance, if your "evil" was a self-serving abusive priest. If that were put into public circulation so many people would have a problem with it because it "casts a bad light on the clergy" or some other nonsense. So you have to water it down, remove any associations to real life institutions OR... you could just write a good guy and save yourself the time. See? Biased towards writing good.

[Banelord]

Originally posted by Pan Darius Loveless:

Originally posted by StepBroccoli:

That's the most naive thing I heard in a while haha.

No, it isn't.

it is wrong. it just proves that the larian cant write a decent evil. to them, being "evil" is being some kind of toxic jerk, exactly what Bhaal is in fact.

i feel they chose the wrong evil god, but i understand why they did it - nostalgia and rememberberries.

the one true evil god is Lord Bane, by far more organized and greater evil than the murder hobo Bhaal.

but again i can understand that Bane is - to the Wotc - problematic, because he is a "dark" lord and "black" hand.

[Fluff]

Originally posted by NineChameleon:

I think pan was talking about in reference to writing though. Not in general.

No no, he definitely wrote this part seriously believing in it:

because we are inherently biased towards 'good'.

Originally posted by NineChameleon:

For the other part you wrote about writinig - yes, it's mostly same as I mentioned as well above about people want to hear that they are "good". That's why most of Origin characters are presented as ones who suffered some kind of abuse or miss-treatment. So people can reflect one or another. While characters like Shar pictured exactly like "evil" was a self-serving abusive priest, just not a priest but a God.