First of all, don't play the "respect" card on me. Nothing I said was in any way disrespectful towards anyone.
"I don't agree with you, so you must be biased in some manner (nostalgia) and and by that I'm implying your points lack validity."
When it gets to that, I don't feel particularly respected, and don't tell me that isn't accurate to what you said because that is what you said.
I literally did NOT say any of this which means yes, it is NOT accurate in any way, shape or form. So now you're making stuff up, and that means our conversation is at an end.
I apologise. I looked again at what you said, and I was unfair to you. I was too quick to feel offended by what you said and to see more in it than there was. It won't happen again.
As I said, for me the writing is really like, the biggest key area of this genre for me, and so tends to be the deciding factor for how much I enjoy a CRPG.
And I think in direct comparisons its where Baldur's Gate is strongest, because I feel the plot has a great deal of emotional engagement because of Irenicus' characterisation; he is outright a villian. There's no attempt at moral ambiguity with him. As the protagonist I feel very motivated to stop him. And you go through a great deal in the way, depending on who you recruit, do you help Anomen become a worthy knight, do you develop a relationship with one of the NPCs, do you do what it takes to save them from Bodhi given that's a fairly significant obstacle in your path to do it, do you forgive Yoshimo for his betrayal? Bioware opted to focus on quality over quantity when it came to the plot, but because of that it feels very focused.
It's a lack of focus I largely found the problem in Pillars, Pathfinder and Original Sin 2.
Pillars lacks personal stakes
Pathfinder lacks a feeling of motivation
Original Sin 2 fails to have a consistent tone and sleepwalks to the end after Fort Joy.
Other people may feel differently, but well, so? I'd be inclined to hear actual anecdotal reasons for why, but the argument that something is good because x people liked it is never a very good way to judge it.
I apologise. I looked again at what you said, and I was unfair to you. I was too quick to feel offended by what you said and to see more in it than there was. It won't happen again.
As I said, for me the writing is really like, the biggest key area of this genre for me, and so tends to be the deciding factor for how much I enjoy a CRPG.
I appreciate very much your apology. Takes a big person to acknowledge they got something wrong.
A note to my earlier point about people judging today's games based on nostalgia for the BG games, I include myself in there as well. I've mentioned elsewhere how BG1 was my first ever foray into cRPGs, and as such it has a very special place in my heart and mind. So I too have had to work very hard, and consciously so, to not compare every single old-school RPG I play nowadays to BG1, because that would be completely unfair. I think the Pillars games continue to suffer with at least some people precisely because of this. PoE1 was the first game, back in 2012, to launch what we're all now calling the old-school RPG renaissance. Obsidian itself built up PoE1 in people's minds by invoking the IE games. But I feel very strongly that this is exactly what ultimately ended up hurting the PoE games, because hardcore fans of old-school RPGs have these warm, fuzzy feelings toward those IE games, and especially the BG games, and for them automatically PoE ended up being bad or at least not very good because it didn't make them feel exactly the same way the BG games made them feel 20 years ago. But even if Obsidian had literally made an exact carbon-copy of BG2 when it made PoE1, people would've panned it and said it's not as good as those old games. Btw, the same point also applies to T:ToN and people comparing it to their feelings toward Ps:T. If people did not make any kind of association or connection or reference between those two games, they would likely find T:ToN to be a perfectly okay game, maybe not great, but not bad either. So all I'm saying is that we ALL need to find a way to let go of the old games we loved back in the day, perhaps even going back to the Gold Box games, and judge today's games on their own merits/demerits and not based on unfair comparisons with games from an earlier era when the gaming world was very different or on whether they evoke inside of us warm feelings from our youth. The past is gone, and for better or worse, cannot be brought back.
Well, to go a bit more into detail on the Pillars games, specifically, because I think its worthwhile to do so, I still overall liked Pillars of Eternity. But, it has shortcomings, and those were really exacerbated by the second game. I actually feel less like I would ever want to play the first one again despite enjoying it because Deadfire was just... they kinda messed up everything. Half of Deadfire is meaningless wandering and constant battles, half of it is a plot track. I really do not care about what they tried to do with the factions because, as I've seen often pointed out and I kind of agree, all the factions are as bad as one another. Obsidian tried to have this political story full of shades of grey (and the writing wasn't quite up to the task either) as a companion piece to a story where you chase after a giant God statue that is just going to do what he wants in the end. It didn't mesh. Siege of Dragonspear had a lot of similar problems in that regard of trying to make two seperate plots intertwine when they really have nothing to do with one another. Deadfire had a few really good side quests but the majority of the game felt hollow to me. Hollower than the first Pillars and the Baldur's Gate games. But its where Pillars ends up hence the lack of desire to ever play that game again, because even though overall, liked it, still not as much as the Baldur's Gate games. But its the only one I could say I enjoyed a lot.
And I did not play Baldur's Gate 1 and 2 when they came out. I was a console gamer mostly until the late 00s. Before then I'd only really played JRPGs. And yeah, even in, I think it was 2007, 08 maybe, I was blown away by Baldur's Gate because indeed, I had played nothing like it before. And I still think they hold up, I even like how they look more than a lot of modern games because 3D, especially in this genre, tends to end being really bland looking, whereas the personality of a lot of locations in the Infinity games hold up very well.
Wait, what? Pillars 1 was nothing BUT personal stakes. The story was literally, "I've been changed and am going crazy, I better find out why." Then that gets answered and it becomes, "What does that dude have to do with my past? What am I forgetting?" If you want to point to a game that lacks personal stakes, Pillars is exactly the wrong example to make.
@hybridial
Gotta agree with @ThacoBell on this one. Whilst I had my issues with a Pillars of Eternity I definitely never felt like it lacked personal stakes.
I should have maybe been a little bit more clear I was thinking more of Deadfire when saying that, as the continuation to the first game it retroactively makes it less interesting because, well, in the end all of what you went through didn't mean a whole lot.
It could be more argued the first one is just really slow towards getting anywhere, which I do think was a source of much criticism. You don't really know anything about the plot until you're about 10 hours in and you're not really involved in a plot with momentum till like 30 hours in. I didn't really mind that too much, but it didn't have the best pacing.
Wait, what? Pillars 1 was nothing BUT personal stakes. The story was literally, "I've been changed and am going crazy, I better find out why." Then that gets answered and it becomes, "What does that dude have to do with my past? What am I forgetting?" If you want to point to a game that lacks personal stakes, Pillars is exactly the wrong example to make.
While I did actually like Pillars, I have to say that this take misses something. It's a show versus tell problem of writing. Pillars tells you that you're going crazy. But you're never actually going crazy in the game, no matter how long you take to complete it.
In fact, it's all quite the opposite. From a gameplay standpoint, you just get more powerful from the thing that you supposedly need to cure. You never once lose touch with reality or are misled by this alleged mounting insanity. I'm not quite sure how you could have integrated a truly "going crazy" consequence into the gameplay that would be fun. But it's clear that there's a huge dissonance in the plot of Pillars between what actually happens to the player and their character and what the plot tells you is happening.
Wait, what? Pillars 1 was nothing BUT personal stakes. The story was literally, "I've been changed and am going crazy, I better find out why." Then that gets answered and it becomes, "What does that dude have to do with my past? What am I forgetting?" If you want to point to a game that lacks personal stakes, Pillars is exactly the wrong example to make.
While I did actually like Pillars, I have to say that this take misses something. It's a show versus tell problem of writing. Pillars tells you that you're going crazy. But you're never actually going crazy in the game, no matter how long you take to complete it.
In fact, it's all quite the opposite. From a gameplay standpoint, you just get more powerful from the thing that you supposedly need to cure. You never once lose touch with reality or are misled by this alleged mounting insanity. I'm not quite sure how you could have integrated a truly "going crazy" consequence into the gameplay that would be fun. But it's clear that there's a huge dissonance in the plot of Pillars between what actually happens to the player and their character and what the plot tells you is happening.
I feel like this criticism could be levied at Baldur's Gate as well. Being the Bhaalspawn doesnt have consequences for your reaction to the world or the world's reaction to you, The sole major exception being the single forced transformation into the slayer, which happens a game and a half into the series.
My point being - I think it's a tall ask. I dont feel BG was substandard because being a bhaalspawn really only means that you have access to a few minor powers and get a few cool voice overs between chapters. Not exactly riveting stuff for having the taint of the god of murder in you...
So if I'm not judging BG on that front, I wont judge PoE either (for that. I have plenty of issues with PoE, and generally regard BG as vastly superior)
Wait, what? Pillars 1 was nothing BUT personal stakes. The story was literally, "I've been changed and am going crazy, I better find out why." Then that gets answered and it becomes, "What does that dude have to do with my past? What am I forgetting?" If you want to point to a game that lacks personal stakes, Pillars is exactly the wrong example to make.
While I did actually like Pillars, I have to say that this take misses something. It's a show versus tell problem of writing. Pillars tells you that you're going crazy. But you're never actually going crazy in the game, no matter how long you take to complete it.
In fact, it's all quite the opposite. From a gameplay standpoint, you just get more powerful from the thing that you supposedly need to cure. You never once lose touch with reality or are misled by this alleged mounting insanity. I'm not quite sure how you could have integrated a truly "going crazy" consequence into the gameplay that would be fun. But it's clear that there's a huge dissonance in the plot of Pillars between what actually happens to the player and their character and what the plot tells you is happening.
Not quite. You do get visions and see people who aren't there at several points throughout the game. I wouldn't call that normal. The game also shows you a Watcher that HAS gone irrevocably crazy. While its not strictly happening to the protaganist, the potential consequences are shown to us.
I feel like this criticism could be levied at Baldur's Gate as well. Being the Bhaalspawn doesnt have consequences for your reaction to the world or the world's reaction to you
Ah, I don't see how any part of this is remotely true. They basically have it written into the story why you're running the most murderhobo party ever. Assassins are after you left and right because of your bloodline in the first game and its really the reason you have a conflict with Sarevok in the first place. And do I need to say anything about BG2? Death trails you constantly, they ended up with a pretty clever story point to justify a campaign that does lack in bloodless options, and that being what you are is a burden more than it is a boon with all the misfortune that constantly besets you.
Wait, what? Pillars 1 was nothing BUT personal stakes. The story was literally, "I've been changed and am going crazy, I better find out why." Then that gets answered and it becomes, "What does that dude have to do with my past? What am I forgetting?" If you want to point to a game that lacks personal stakes, Pillars is exactly the wrong example to make.
While I did actually like Pillars, I have to say that this take misses something. It's a show versus tell problem of writing. Pillars tells you that you're going crazy. But you're never actually going crazy in the game, no matter how long you take to complete it.
In fact, it's all quite the opposite. From a gameplay standpoint, you just get more powerful from the thing that you supposedly need to cure. You never once lose touch with reality or are misled by this alleged mounting insanity. I'm not quite sure how you could have integrated a truly "going crazy" consequence into the gameplay that would be fun. But it's clear that there's a huge dissonance in the plot of Pillars between what actually happens to the player and their character and what the plot tells you is happening.
I feel like this criticism could be levied at Baldur's Gate as well. Being the Bhaalspawn doesnt have consequences for your reaction to the world or the world's reaction to you, The sole major exception being the single forced transformation into the slayer, which happens a game and a half into the series.
My point being - I think it's a tall ask. I dont feel BG was substandard because being a bhaalspawn really only means that you have access to a few minor powers and get a few cool voice overs between chapters. Not exactly riveting stuff for having the taint of the god of murder in you...
So if I'm not judging BG on that front, I wont judge PoE either (for that. I have plenty of issues with PoE, and generally regard BG as vastly superior)
I agree with what you're saying, that being said, given that Pillars happened a lot later than BG, I would expect a bit more consequences from the thing your character is supposedly suffering from -- not just a bunch of superpowers. Too often in the Pillars series, this is also used as a deus ex machina thing -- for example in Deadfire, your arrival in Nekataka. While BG did give you some Bhaalspawn powers, they were very rarely used to take quest solving out of your hands.
I'll also add that the BG series *did* do a few gameplay consequences that you felt the need to get rid of. Getting hunted by authorities in the final segment of BG1 is an excellent example. The Slayer a second example. There is virtually no equivalent to this in all of PoE1/2.
Wait, what? Pillars 1 was nothing BUT personal stakes. The story was literally, "I've been changed and am going crazy, I better find out why." Then that gets answered and it becomes, "What does that dude have to do with my past? What am I forgetting?" If you want to point to a game that lacks personal stakes, Pillars is exactly the wrong example to make.
While I did actually like Pillars, I have to say that this take misses something. It's a show versus tell problem of writing. Pillars tells you that you're going crazy. But you're never actually going crazy in the game, no matter how long you take to complete it.
In fact, it's all quite the opposite. From a gameplay standpoint, you just get more powerful from the thing that you supposedly need to cure. You never once lose touch with reality or are misled by this alleged mounting insanity. I'm not quite sure how you could have integrated a truly "going crazy" consequence into the gameplay that would be fun. But it's clear that there's a huge dissonance in the plot of Pillars between what actually happens to the player and their character and what the plot tells you is happening.
Not quite. You do get visions and see people who aren't there at several points throughout the game. I wouldn't call that normal. The game also shows you a Watcher that HAS gone irrevocably crazy. While its not strictly happening to the protaganist, the potential consequences are shown to us.
But the player is never misled by these visions. And these visions have zero gameplay consequences. It's a superficial example of consequence imo. In fact, you very quickly learn exactly what these visions are and are basically taught by the game to treat them as inconsequential.
I want to reiterate that it was a monumental challenge to make a negative consequence here fun. At the same time, I don't think it worked for the overall saga to have so many moments where your Watcher powers magically solved some problem in the plot for the player.
I feel like this criticism could be levied at Baldur's Gate as well. Being the Bhaalspawn doesnt have consequences for your reaction to the world or the world's reaction to you
Ah, I don't see how any part of this is remotely true. They basically have it written into the story why you're running the most murderhobo party ever. Assassins are after you left and right because of your bloodline in the first game and its really the reason you have a conflict with Sarevok in the first place. And do I need to say anything about BG2? Death trails you constantly, they ended up with a pretty clever story point to justify a campaign that does lack in bloodless options, and that being what you are is a burden more than it is a boon with all the misfortune that constantly besets you.
I think this argument is an inconsistent take with your previous argument against PoE 1. I dont think the Candlekeep through Sarevok's killing of Gorion is any more or less reactive than the sequence in the tutorial of PoE 1.
From that point on, until quite a bit into the game (Chapters, really) - almost all of the fighting you do is simply to resolve the iron crisis and not the world reacting to you being a bhaalspawn. For good reason, it's not even *revealed* until you return to Candlekeep. Until then, it's mostly just some spooky dreams and almost no meaningful exposition.
Even if we add in the random dwarven assassin in Berghost, it's still not a whole lot. Certainly not enough to suggest that Baldur's Gate is heavily reactive to the player as Bhaalspawn.
If we want to use comparison that PoE should have had elements of the player almost or totally going mad, the equivalent isnt being hunted by assassins in BG 1. The equivalent is that the bhaalspawn is always dancing on the edge of a knife into succumbing to the taint and becoming a murderer. In fact, every single bhaalspawn you meet in the entire game (except for Imoen) goes full on darkside. Except as I said Imoen and apparently you, who is never prevented or remotely conflicted about going 100% lawful good the whole game. If the game was truly reactive on this point, it would have provided the player some level of conflict about resisting the taint.
Wait, what? Pillars 1 was nothing BUT personal stakes. The story was literally, "I've been changed and am going crazy, I better find out why." Then that gets answered and it becomes, "What does that dude have to do with my past? What am I forgetting?" If you want to point to a game that lacks personal stakes, Pillars is exactly the wrong example to make.
While I did actually like Pillars, I have to say that this take misses something. It's a show versus tell problem of writing. Pillars tells you that you're going crazy. But you're never actually going crazy in the game, no matter how long you take to complete it.
In fact, it's all quite the opposite. From a gameplay standpoint, you just get more powerful from the thing that you supposedly need to cure. You never once lose touch with reality or are misled by this alleged mounting insanity. I'm not quite sure how you could have integrated a truly "going crazy" consequence into the gameplay that would be fun. But it's clear that there's a huge dissonance in the plot of Pillars between what actually happens to the player and their character and what the plot tells you is happening.
I feel like this criticism could be levied at Baldur's Gate as well. Being the Bhaalspawn doesnt have consequences for your reaction to the world or the world's reaction to you, The sole major exception being the single forced transformation into the slayer, which happens a game and a half into the series.
My point being - I think it's a tall ask. I dont feel BG was substandard because being a bhaalspawn really only means that you have access to a few minor powers and get a few cool voice overs between chapters. Not exactly riveting stuff for having the taint of the god of murder in you...
So if I'm not judging BG on that front, I wont judge PoE either (for that. I have plenty of issues with PoE, and generally regard BG as vastly superior)
I agree with what you're saying, that being said, given that Pillars happened a lot later than BG, I would expect a bit more consequences from the thing your character is supposedly suffering from -- not just a bunch of superpowers. Too often in the Pillars series, this is also used as a deus ex machina thing -- for example in Deadfire, your arrival in Nekataka. While BG did give you some Bhaalspawn powers, they were very rarely used to take quest solving out of your hands.
I'll also add that the BG series *did* do a few gameplay consequences that you felt the need to get rid of. Getting hunted by authorities in the final segment of BG1 is an excellent example. The Slayer a second example. There is virtually no equivalent to this in all of PoE1/2.
I'm perfectly fine with the argument that a game made later should be better done.
I mean yeah - there were *some* consequences to being Bhaalspawn, but I'm not arguing that there were none. Just very few, and so criticizing another game for not having enough world reaction means we shouldnt be afraid to say the same thing about BG.
IIRC, the authorities hunting you at the end of BG1 are doing so because you were framed for murders, and not being the bhaalspawn. So that's not an example of the game reacting to you. Sarevok might known, but it's a stretch to try to then say everything Sarevok does is the world reacting to you being bhaalspawn -he absolutely has his own agenda at the time, and it isnt just about killing your character.
Wait, what? Pillars 1 was nothing BUT personal stakes. The story was literally, "I've been changed and am going crazy, I better find out why." Then that gets answered and it becomes, "What does that dude have to do with my past? What am I forgetting?" If you want to point to a game that lacks personal stakes, Pillars is exactly the wrong example to make.
While I did actually like Pillars, I have to say that this take misses something. It's a show versus tell problem of writing. Pillars tells you that you're going crazy. But you're never actually going crazy in the game, no matter how long you take to complete it.
In fact, it's all quite the opposite. From a gameplay standpoint, you just get more powerful from the thing that you supposedly need to cure. You never once lose touch with reality or are misled by this alleged mounting insanity. I'm not quite sure how you could have integrated a truly "going crazy" consequence into the gameplay that would be fun. But it's clear that there's a huge dissonance in the plot of Pillars between what actually happens to the player and their character and what the plot tells you is happening.
Not quite. You do get visions and see people who aren't there at several points throughout the game. I wouldn't call that normal. The game also shows you a Watcher that HAS gone irrevocably crazy. While its not strictly happening to the protaganist, the potential consequences are shown to us.
But the player is never misled by these visions. And these visions have zero gameplay consequences. It's a superficial example of consequence imo. In fact, you very quickly learn exactly what these visions are and are basically taught by the game to treat them as inconsequential.
I want to reiterate that it was a monumental challenge to make a negative consequence here fun. At the same time, I don't think it worked for the overall saga to have so many moments where your Watcher powers magically solved some problem in the plot for the player.
The ENTIRE PLOT is a consequence of your being a Watcher. Saying there are no consequences is blatantly wrong.
Wait, what? Pillars 1 was nothing BUT personal stakes. The story was literally, "I've been changed and am going crazy, I better find out why." Then that gets answered and it becomes, "What does that dude have to do with my past? What am I forgetting?" If you want to point to a game that lacks personal stakes, Pillars is exactly the wrong example to make.
While I did actually like Pillars, I have to say that this take misses something. It's a show versus tell problem of writing. Pillars tells you that you're going crazy. But you're never actually going crazy in the game, no matter how long you take to complete it.
In fact, it's all quite the opposite. From a gameplay standpoint, you just get more powerful from the thing that you supposedly need to cure. You never once lose touch with reality or are misled by this alleged mounting insanity. I'm not quite sure how you could have integrated a truly "going crazy" consequence into the gameplay that would be fun. But it's clear that there's a huge dissonance in the plot of Pillars between what actually happens to the player and their character and what the plot tells you is happening.
Not quite. You do get visions and see people who aren't there at several points throughout the game. I wouldn't call that normal. The game also shows you a Watcher that HAS gone irrevocably crazy. While its not strictly happening to the protaganist, the potential consequences are shown to us.
But the player is never misled by these visions. And these visions have zero gameplay consequences. It's a superficial example of consequence imo. In fact, you very quickly learn exactly what these visions are and are basically taught by the game to treat them as inconsequential.
I want to reiterate that it was a monumental challenge to make a negative consequence here fun. At the same time, I don't think it worked for the overall saga to have so many moments where your Watcher powers magically solved some problem in the plot for the player.
The ENTIRE PLOT is a consequence of your being a Watcher. Saying there are no consequences is blatantly wrong.
Hmm... again, you're doing the thing where you don't read what I wrote. Or you're changing to goalposts mid-discussion. My specific point was that Pillars tells the player they are going crazy because of the affliction... but you never actually go crazy in any significant or even harmful way. You don't even have a moment like with the Slayer.
Saying that I now have to talk about the entire plot of the game when my point was not about the entire plot of the game is a blatant or intentional misreading of what I said. I encourage you to stop doing this.
I mean yeah - there were *some* consequences to being Bhaalspawn, but I'm not arguing that there were none. Just very few, and so criticizing another game for not having enough world reaction means we shouldnt be afraid to say the same thing about BG.
IIRC, the authorities hunting you at the end of BG1 are doing so because you were framed for murders, and not being the bhaalspawn. So that's not an example of the game reacting to you. Sarevok might known, but it's a stretch to try to then say everything Sarevok does is the world reacting to you being bhaalspawn -he absolutely has his own agenda at the time, and it isnt just about killing your character.
I dunno why the gameplay consequences have to center around being a Bhaalspawn as opposed to something else. I think the point is that the game tells you something negative has happened to you and you need to change it. And you feel those negative consequences as a player. This is the "show" of show versus tell in storytelling.
Again, contrast being framed in BG1 with "going crazy" in Pillars. Nothing consequential happens in the latter. In the former, it completely changes how you have to navigate through the city.
Well, bringing all of this back to BG3, it would then mean that we should be able to expect some serious *negative* consequences to having that tadpole inside us and not just some cool powers to use to more easily solve puzzles and quests. I am sincerely doubtful we will see any such thing, but would be happy to be proven wrong. We'll have to wait and see, I suppose.
I mean yeah - there were *some* consequences to being Bhaalspawn, but I'm not arguing that there were none. Just very few, and so criticizing another game for not having enough world reaction means we shouldnt be afraid to say the same thing about BG.
IIRC, the authorities hunting you at the end of BG1 are doing so because you were framed for murders, and not being the bhaalspawn. So that's not an example of the game reacting to you. Sarevok might known, but it's a stretch to try to then say everything Sarevok does is the world reacting to you being bhaalspawn -he absolutely has his own agenda at the time, and it isnt just about killing your character.
I dunno why the gameplay consequences have to center around being a Bhaalspawn as opposed to something else. I think the point is that the game tells you something negative has happened to you and you need to change it. And you feel those negative consequences as a player. This is the "show" of show versus tell in storytelling.
Again, contrast being framed in BG1 with "going crazy" in Pillars. Nothing consequential happens in the latter. In the former, it completely changes how you have to navigate through the city.
I dont think this argument is making sense. The only reasonable thing to compare the change the protagonist undergoes in PoE (Becoming the Watcher) is the taint in BG 1.
If I attack a guard and kill them in a city in PoE, I'll be attacked by other guards. That's not really all that much different than being framed for murders in BG1 causing the flaming fist to attack you. It's just a plot enforced variant.
As it relates to BG - they dont even tell you that you're the bhaalspawn until the penultimate chapter of the game. All the things that "happen to you" are as a result of you solving the iron crisis. That's no so different than the way that PoE responds to you when you complete game objectives there.
Well, bringing all of this back to BG3, it would then mean that we should be able to expect some serious *negative* consequences to having that tadpole inside us and not just some cool powers to use to more easily solve puzzles and quests. I am sincerely doubtful we will see any such thing, but would be happy to be proven wrong. We'll have to wait and see, I suppose.
I agree that hopefully this will be in the game. I'm more hopeful than you are on the subject, but I agree that if the tadpole is just a consequence free way to have more power, it will have been a major letdown.
Bg1 is NOT about the Bhaalspawn, that part is only revealed in the last chapters of the game and inconsequential. Bg1 is about the intrigue in the city and the sword coast, all directed by Sarevok. That he hunts you is just a side concern and not even a minor footnote in his whole ploy to drag the sword coast into a war with Amn.
That is the reason why the game title fits so well. Being a bhaalspawn is only a vehicle to understand why he is after you.
Bg2 is only about the Bhaalspawn and has nothing to do with the main title anymore. The city is barely named in the game. It is by name not a true sequel, only in what happens to the previous protagonist after the baldurs gate adventure. If you want to complain how that taint has no effect on the game world in bg2, I am sure you are correct.
I think this argument is an inconsistent take with your previous argument against PoE 1.
Well, bare in mind I'm not the one who talked about world reactivity or The Watcher's status, for me the personal stakes issue is more about being engaged in those stakes, and I feel I was far more engaged by the adventure in Baldur's Gate than Pillars of Eternity. Part of that would definitely be the pacing issues in Pillars, possibly Obsidian's writing style which was ah, wordy and dry (a good description of the entire plot really), and BG's opening is far more interesting than Pillars to me because Pillars opens with a mystery that really had nothing to do with who you are or were before, and at least until you find out otherwise much later, it seems completely arbitrary that you became involved in any of it. Whereas in Baldur's Gate, you know something is wrong, people are after you, you're not safe in one of the most fortified places in the area, and the man who's been your guardian this whole time dies protecting you.
Now, is this flawed? Yeah, we don't really know or ever learn as much about Gorion as we ought to, and there's a bit of an inconsistency in that Sarevok decides he's willing to personally ambush you outside Candlekeep and is content with killing Gorion and letting you escape. I take from that that he believes without Gorion you're easy prey that will fall to one of the assassins sent after you, but eh, it is definitely a bit of an eyebrow raiser, but I forgive it because without it, the game wouldn't happen.
Regardless of those flaws I just find the Bhaalspawn's situation way more engaging than the Watcher's.
well you still got assassins coming after you after gorion dies. seravok might just think your to weak to deal with and doers not want to waste his resources sending his henchmen after you.
@lroumen "Bg1 is NOT about the Bhaalspawn, that part is only revealed in the last chapters of the game and inconsequential. Bg1 is about the intrigue in the city and the sword coast, all directed by Sarevok. That he hunts you is just a side concern and not even a minor footnote in his whole ploy to drag the sword coast into a war with Amn."
This is 100% wrong. Charname being a Bhaalspawn is 100% reason the story even happens. From the beginning of chapter 1 to the end of the game, you are dealing with that. Being hunted for it, having dreams about it, getting powers from it. Charname dealing with the taint, even before its source is revealed, colors everything about the events in the game. Even the war and iron crises are based entirely around another Bhallspawn's ambitions. The source of the problem not being revealed to the end does not mean that the problem is not affecting the story.
Baldur's Gate, from beginning to end, is a nature vs. nurture story. To miss this, is to miss the single most prevalent theme of the series.
yeah bg 1 does not make the reveal your a bhaalspawn that much of a big deal unless you have npc project installed.
it was jsut a plot twist to give you more a connection to seravok at the end and explain why he was after you.
you being a bhaalspawn did not really become important until 2 or if your playing the series in order sod.
You know, I completely missed that whole thing about being Bhaalspawn the first time I played, because you don't get the letter that reveals it unless you go to the top floor of the Candlekeep Library and find it hidden there. That top floor is above the floor where Rieltar's party waits, and I found Rieltar's meeting room and had the encounter before going up any higher. I started to leave, was confronted by the guard, and imprisoned.
I didn't find out about the Bhaalspawn thing until BG2 made it clearer.
(Doesn't NPC Project place the letter in the first room of the Catacombs where you are teleported, as a way to solve that problem of never getting the letter?)
For such an important reveal, I think that's a weakness in game design there. So I am sympathetic when I hear arguments that a lot of our reverence for BG is nostalgia-based, and that BG had plenty of the same weaknesses we often accuse newer games of having.
The letter isn't the only thing that suggests it. It could certainly be inferred from watching the game's intro and reading Sarevok's diary. It is a fairly big reveal but also not the absolutely most pertinent thing to you at that point in the game, stopping Sarevok's plans are.
And from what I've read, the Bhaalspawn aspect was there mainly as a sequel hook for a game they didn't know if they would ever make, and Baldur's Gate 2 did not start out as that sequel in the initial planning.
Deadfire's story is similar to that, it wasn't intended to follow the same character at least.
But BG2 is so much better than Deadfire I feel that's barely an argument worth having.
@BelgarathMTH But the guard doesn't stop you right away. He only spawns if you try to leave the library after talking to Rieltar, or once you reach the top floor. Gorion's letter is the floor below the top iirc.
Or is it different if you actually murder him? I've never done so.
@BelgarathMTH But the guard doesn't stop you right away. He only spawns if you try to leave the library after talking to Rieltar, or once you reach the top floor. Gorion's letter is the floor below the top iirc.
Or is it different if you actually murder him? I've never done so.
in the vanilla game, if you killed reiltar on the third floor, then as soon as you hit the forth floor a candlekeep guard will walk over to your position and chase you on the entire floor until you talk with him and then you can either fight him and make him hostile ( which i dont think you can do anymore? ) or be framed for murder
i also got caught by this guy for years never knowing if there was a way pass him, because i also believe in the vanilla even if you did make it pass him the gate keeper would automatically set you up for prison on the 6th floor
now, in the EEs its much easier to get up there, if you pass koveras and reiltar without talking to either one, you can now trapeze up to floor 4,5,6 with no worries or cares, and then once your done your business up there you either have to talk with kovers, reiltar, or actually murder reiltar's group and just go back to floor 4 and the guard will be there ( and if he isn't there for some reason ) you can talk with the gatekeeper on floor 6 and he will imprison you instead ( man word travels fast in that building... )
Comments
I literally did NOT say any of this which means yes, it is NOT accurate in any way, shape or form. So now you're making stuff up, and that means our conversation is at an end.
I apologise. I looked again at what you said, and I was unfair to you. I was too quick to feel offended by what you said and to see more in it than there was. It won't happen again.
As I said, for me the writing is really like, the biggest key area of this genre for me, and so tends to be the deciding factor for how much I enjoy a CRPG.
And I think in direct comparisons its where Baldur's Gate is strongest, because I feel the plot has a great deal of emotional engagement because of Irenicus' characterisation; he is outright a villian. There's no attempt at moral ambiguity with him. As the protagonist I feel very motivated to stop him. And you go through a great deal in the way, depending on who you recruit, do you help Anomen become a worthy knight, do you develop a relationship with one of the NPCs, do you do what it takes to save them from Bodhi given that's a fairly significant obstacle in your path to do it, do you forgive Yoshimo for his betrayal? Bioware opted to focus on quality over quantity when it came to the plot, but because of that it feels very focused.
It's a lack of focus I largely found the problem in Pillars, Pathfinder and Original Sin 2.
Pillars lacks personal stakes
Pathfinder lacks a feeling of motivation
Original Sin 2 fails to have a consistent tone and sleepwalks to the end after Fort Joy.
Other people may feel differently, but well, so? I'd be inclined to hear actual anecdotal reasons for why, but the argument that something is good because x people liked it is never a very good way to judge it.
A note to my earlier point about people judging today's games based on nostalgia for the BG games, I include myself in there as well. I've mentioned elsewhere how BG1 was my first ever foray into cRPGs, and as such it has a very special place in my heart and mind. So I too have had to work very hard, and consciously so, to not compare every single old-school RPG I play nowadays to BG1, because that would be completely unfair. I think the Pillars games continue to suffer with at least some people precisely because of this. PoE1 was the first game, back in 2012, to launch what we're all now calling the old-school RPG renaissance. Obsidian itself built up PoE1 in people's minds by invoking the IE games. But I feel very strongly that this is exactly what ultimately ended up hurting the PoE games, because hardcore fans of old-school RPGs have these warm, fuzzy feelings toward those IE games, and especially the BG games, and for them automatically PoE ended up being bad or at least not very good because it didn't make them feel exactly the same way the BG games made them feel 20 years ago. But even if Obsidian had literally made an exact carbon-copy of BG2 when it made PoE1, people would've panned it and said it's not as good as those old games. Btw, the same point also applies to T:ToN and people comparing it to their feelings toward Ps:T. If people did not make any kind of association or connection or reference between those two games, they would likely find T:ToN to be a perfectly okay game, maybe not great, but not bad either. So all I'm saying is that we ALL need to find a way to let go of the old games we loved back in the day, perhaps even going back to the Gold Box games, and judge today's games on their own merits/demerits and not based on unfair comparisons with games from an earlier era when the gaming world was very different or on whether they evoke inside of us warm feelings from our youth. The past is gone, and for better or worse, cannot be brought back.
And I did not play Baldur's Gate 1 and 2 when they came out. I was a console gamer mostly until the late 00s. Before then I'd only really played JRPGs. And yeah, even in, I think it was 2007, 08 maybe, I was blown away by Baldur's Gate because indeed, I had played nothing like it before. And I still think they hold up, I even like how they look more than a lot of modern games because 3D, especially in this genre, tends to end being really bland looking, whereas the personality of a lot of locations in the Infinity games hold up very well.
Wait, what? Pillars 1 was nothing BUT personal stakes. The story was literally, "I've been changed and am going crazy, I better find out why." Then that gets answered and it becomes, "What does that dude have to do with my past? What am I forgetting?" If you want to point to a game that lacks personal stakes, Pillars is exactly the wrong example to make.
Gotta agree with @ThacoBell on this one. Whilst I had my issues with a Pillars of Eternity I definitely never felt like it lacked personal stakes.
It could be more argued the first one is just really slow towards getting anywhere, which I do think was a source of much criticism. You don't really know anything about the plot until you're about 10 hours in and you're not really involved in a plot with momentum till like 30 hours in. I didn't really mind that too much, but it didn't have the best pacing.
While I did actually like Pillars, I have to say that this take misses something. It's a show versus tell problem of writing. Pillars tells you that you're going crazy. But you're never actually going crazy in the game, no matter how long you take to complete it.
In fact, it's all quite the opposite. From a gameplay standpoint, you just get more powerful from the thing that you supposedly need to cure. You never once lose touch with reality or are misled by this alleged mounting insanity. I'm not quite sure how you could have integrated a truly "going crazy" consequence into the gameplay that would be fun. But it's clear that there's a huge dissonance in the plot of Pillars between what actually happens to the player and their character and what the plot tells you is happening.
I feel like this criticism could be levied at Baldur's Gate as well. Being the Bhaalspawn doesnt have consequences for your reaction to the world or the world's reaction to you, The sole major exception being the single forced transformation into the slayer, which happens a game and a half into the series.
My point being - I think it's a tall ask. I dont feel BG was substandard because being a bhaalspawn really only means that you have access to a few minor powers and get a few cool voice overs between chapters. Not exactly riveting stuff for having the taint of the god of murder in you...
So if I'm not judging BG on that front, I wont judge PoE either (for that. I have plenty of issues with PoE, and generally regard BG as vastly superior)
Not quite. You do get visions and see people who aren't there at several points throughout the game. I wouldn't call that normal. The game also shows you a Watcher that HAS gone irrevocably crazy. While its not strictly happening to the protaganist, the potential consequences are shown to us.
Ah, I don't see how any part of this is remotely true. They basically have it written into the story why you're running the most murderhobo party ever. Assassins are after you left and right because of your bloodline in the first game and its really the reason you have a conflict with Sarevok in the first place. And do I need to say anything about BG2? Death trails you constantly, they ended up with a pretty clever story point to justify a campaign that does lack in bloodless options, and that being what you are is a burden more than it is a boon with all the misfortune that constantly besets you.
I agree with what you're saying, that being said, given that Pillars happened a lot later than BG, I would expect a bit more consequences from the thing your character is supposedly suffering from -- not just a bunch of superpowers. Too often in the Pillars series, this is also used as a deus ex machina thing -- for example in Deadfire, your arrival in Nekataka. While BG did give you some Bhaalspawn powers, they were very rarely used to take quest solving out of your hands.
I'll also add that the BG series *did* do a few gameplay consequences that you felt the need to get rid of. Getting hunted by authorities in the final segment of BG1 is an excellent example. The Slayer a second example. There is virtually no equivalent to this in all of PoE1/2.
But the player is never misled by these visions. And these visions have zero gameplay consequences. It's a superficial example of consequence imo. In fact, you very quickly learn exactly what these visions are and are basically taught by the game to treat them as inconsequential.
I want to reiterate that it was a monumental challenge to make a negative consequence here fun. At the same time, I don't think it worked for the overall saga to have so many moments where your Watcher powers magically solved some problem in the plot for the player.
I think this argument is an inconsistent take with your previous argument against PoE 1. I dont think the Candlekeep through Sarevok's killing of Gorion is any more or less reactive than the sequence in the tutorial of PoE 1.
From that point on, until quite a bit into the game (Chapters, really) - almost all of the fighting you do is simply to resolve the iron crisis and not the world reacting to you being a bhaalspawn. For good reason, it's not even *revealed* until you return to Candlekeep. Until then, it's mostly just some spooky dreams and almost no meaningful exposition.
Even if we add in the random dwarven assassin in Berghost, it's still not a whole lot. Certainly not enough to suggest that Baldur's Gate is heavily reactive to the player as Bhaalspawn.
If we want to use comparison that PoE should have had elements of the player almost or totally going mad, the equivalent isnt being hunted by assassins in BG 1. The equivalent is that the bhaalspawn is always dancing on the edge of a knife into succumbing to the taint and becoming a murderer. In fact, every single bhaalspawn you meet in the entire game (except for Imoen) goes full on darkside. Except as I said Imoen and apparently you, who is never prevented or remotely conflicted about going 100% lawful good the whole game. If the game was truly reactive on this point, it would have provided the player some level of conflict about resisting the taint.
I'm perfectly fine with the argument that a game made later should be better done.
I mean yeah - there were *some* consequences to being Bhaalspawn, but I'm not arguing that there were none. Just very few, and so criticizing another game for not having enough world reaction means we shouldnt be afraid to say the same thing about BG.
IIRC, the authorities hunting you at the end of BG1 are doing so because you were framed for murders, and not being the bhaalspawn. So that's not an example of the game reacting to you. Sarevok might known, but it's a stretch to try to then say everything Sarevok does is the world reacting to you being bhaalspawn -he absolutely has his own agenda at the time, and it isnt just about killing your character.
The ENTIRE PLOT is a consequence of your being a Watcher. Saying there are no consequences is blatantly wrong.
Hmm... again, you're doing the thing where you don't read what I wrote. Or you're changing to goalposts mid-discussion. My specific point was that Pillars tells the player they are going crazy because of the affliction... but you never actually go crazy in any significant or even harmful way. You don't even have a moment like with the Slayer.
Saying that I now have to talk about the entire plot of the game when my point was not about the entire plot of the game is a blatant or intentional misreading of what I said. I encourage you to stop doing this.
I dunno why the gameplay consequences have to center around being a Bhaalspawn as opposed to something else. I think the point is that the game tells you something negative has happened to you and you need to change it. And you feel those negative consequences as a player. This is the "show" of show versus tell in storytelling.
Again, contrast being framed in BG1 with "going crazy" in Pillars. Nothing consequential happens in the latter. In the former, it completely changes how you have to navigate through the city.
I dont think this argument is making sense. The only reasonable thing to compare the change the protagonist undergoes in PoE (Becoming the Watcher) is the taint in BG 1.
If I attack a guard and kill them in a city in PoE, I'll be attacked by other guards. That's not really all that much different than being framed for murders in BG1 causing the flaming fist to attack you. It's just a plot enforced variant.
As it relates to BG - they dont even tell you that you're the bhaalspawn until the penultimate chapter of the game. All the things that "happen to you" are as a result of you solving the iron crisis. That's no so different than the way that PoE responds to you when you complete game objectives there.
I agree that hopefully this will be in the game. I'm more hopeful than you are on the subject, but I agree that if the tadpole is just a consequence free way to have more power, it will have been a major letdown.
That is the reason why the game title fits so well. Being a bhaalspawn is only a vehicle to understand why he is after you.
Bg2 is only about the Bhaalspawn and has nothing to do with the main title anymore. The city is barely named in the game. It is by name not a true sequel, only in what happens to the previous protagonist after the baldurs gate adventure. If you want to complain how that taint has no effect on the game world in bg2, I am sure you are correct.
it was jsut a plot twist to give you more a connection to seravok at the end and explain why he was after you.
you being a bhaalspawn did not really become important until 2 or if your playing the series in order sod.
Well, bare in mind I'm not the one who talked about world reactivity or The Watcher's status, for me the personal stakes issue is more about being engaged in those stakes, and I feel I was far more engaged by the adventure in Baldur's Gate than Pillars of Eternity. Part of that would definitely be the pacing issues in Pillars, possibly Obsidian's writing style which was ah, wordy and dry (a good description of the entire plot really), and BG's opening is far more interesting than Pillars to me because Pillars opens with a mystery that really had nothing to do with who you are or were before, and at least until you find out otherwise much later, it seems completely arbitrary that you became involved in any of it. Whereas in Baldur's Gate, you know something is wrong, people are after you, you're not safe in one of the most fortified places in the area, and the man who's been your guardian this whole time dies protecting you.
Now, is this flawed? Yeah, we don't really know or ever learn as much about Gorion as we ought to, and there's a bit of an inconsistency in that Sarevok decides he's willing to personally ambush you outside Candlekeep and is content with killing Gorion and letting you escape. I take from that that he believes without Gorion you're easy prey that will fall to one of the assassins sent after you, but eh, it is definitely a bit of an eyebrow raiser, but I forgive it because without it, the game wouldn't happen.
Regardless of those flaws I just find the Bhaalspawn's situation way more engaging than the Watcher's.
This is 100% wrong. Charname being a Bhaalspawn is 100% reason the story even happens. From the beginning of chapter 1 to the end of the game, you are dealing with that. Being hunted for it, having dreams about it, getting powers from it. Charname dealing with the taint, even before its source is revealed, colors everything about the events in the game. Even the war and iron crises are based entirely around another Bhallspawn's ambitions. The source of the problem not being revealed to the end does not mean that the problem is not affecting the story.
Baldur's Gate, from beginning to end, is a nature vs. nurture story. To miss this, is to miss the single most prevalent theme of the series.
You know, I completely missed that whole thing about being Bhaalspawn the first time I played, because you don't get the letter that reveals it unless you go to the top floor of the Candlekeep Library and find it hidden there. That top floor is above the floor where Rieltar's party waits, and I found Rieltar's meeting room and had the encounter before going up any higher. I started to leave, was confronted by the guard, and imprisoned.
I didn't find out about the Bhaalspawn thing until BG2 made it clearer.
(Doesn't NPC Project place the letter in the first room of the Catacombs where you are teleported, as a way to solve that problem of never getting the letter?)
For such an important reveal, I think that's a weakness in game design there. So I am sympathetic when I hear arguments that a lot of our reverence for BG is nostalgia-based, and that BG had plenty of the same weaknesses we often accuse newer games of having.
And from what I've read, the Bhaalspawn aspect was there mainly as a sequel hook for a game they didn't know if they would ever make, and Baldur's Gate 2 did not start out as that sequel in the initial planning.
Deadfire's story is similar to that, it wasn't intended to follow the same character at least.
But BG2 is so much better than Deadfire I feel that's barely an argument worth having.
Or is it different if you actually murder him? I've never done so.
in the vanilla game, if you killed reiltar on the third floor, then as soon as you hit the forth floor a candlekeep guard will walk over to your position and chase you on the entire floor until you talk with him and then you can either fight him and make him hostile ( which i dont think you can do anymore? ) or be framed for murder
i also got caught by this guy for years never knowing if there was a way pass him, because i also believe in the vanilla even if you did make it pass him the gate keeper would automatically set you up for prison on the 6th floor
now, in the EEs its much easier to get up there, if you pass koveras and reiltar without talking to either one, you can now trapeze up to floor 4,5,6 with no worries or cares, and then once your done your business up there you either have to talk with kovers, reiltar, or actually murder reiltar's group and just go back to floor 4 and the guard will be there ( and if he isn't there for some reason ) you can talk with the gatekeeper on floor 6 and he will imprison you instead ( man word travels fast in that building... )