Yeah. I understand that @BelgarathMTH doesnt like these characters too much(which is fine. Your opinion is your opinion), but I dont think i'd characterize them as overly edgy. It sounds to me like you just want more unambiguously always lawful-good companions, and I think Larian prefers to make more 3 dimensional characters, who may sometimes do a small evil for a greater good (or the reverse).
Red Prince is kind of great. I agree he's a bit of a buffoon, in an "out of touch" kind of way.
"It sounds to me like you just want more unambiguously always lawful-good companions, and I think Larian prefers to make more 3 dimensional characters,"
this sound like your saying lawful good characters can't be 3 dimensional.
"It sounds to me like you just want more unambiguously always lawful-good companions, and I think Larian prefers to make more 3 dimensional characters,"
this sound like your saying lawful good characters can't be 3 dimensional.
I've got an interesting idea, why dont you ask me what I meant rather than speculating? I'm right here.
No - I'll save you the post. I'll just literally tell you what I meant.
Lawful Good characters can absolutely be 3 dimensional. Characters whose response to every situation and every scenario is to only choose the "lawful" or "Good" option/response/action can be decidedly 1-note. It doesnt meant that character cannot be three dimensional although I believe it's much (much, much) harder for them to be both three dimensional and compelling. I emboldened the word in my initial post that reflects this. Not all characters are created equal.
Okay. I'm glad we've settled that I did not say "Lawful Good characters cant be 3 dimensional".
"Jaheira is a loyal harper and a druid devoted to maintaining the balance. However, wrestling with the tragic death of her beloved after months of captivity at the hands of a mysterious, powerful figure, will she be able to find inner peace as she searches for revenge?"
Which does not end up being what they do with her character. I feel like that's a generic description that probably would be likely what that character put in another game might be , but in BG2 the main thing not there is the revenge concept. She never really expresses a desire that she has to make Irenicus pay. She definitely expresses a lot of sorrow for Khalid's death, and whilst her romance seems a little bit off for it to happen so quickly after his death, (I haven't played it out myself so can't judge it otherwise) but if not doing that, the main focus for Jaheira is actually choosing between her loyalty to the Harpers and her loyalty to you, although more specifically its her deciding what she thinks is truly right in the situation, to side with her own or with you.
And I like that because I do think in this sort of game as much as is reasonable it should generally be about the player and their relationship with those characters and the impact on them.
I think the player should have control of the story and most of what happens in it, at least that's the point of a role playing game I feel, not just a videogame RPG but RPGs in general. I also think it's how videogame stories in general should also be approached because when they don't do that, when it comes to forcing the player into things, I find it forced and fake. Write a book if you want to do that kind of story, it goes against all the strengths of videogames as a medium.
"Jaheira is a loyal harper and a druid devoted to maintaining the balance. However, wrestling with the tragic death of her beloved after months of captivity at the hands of a mysterious, powerful figure, will she be able to find inner peace as she searches for revenge?"
Which does not end up being what they do with her character. I feel like that's a generic description that probably would be likely what that character put in another game might be , but in BG2 the main thing not there is the revenge concept. She never really expresses a desire that she has to make Irenicus pay. She definitely expresses a lot of sorrow for Khalid's death, and whilst her romance seems a little bit off for it to happen so quickly after his death, (I haven't played it out myself so can't judge it otherwise) but if not doing that, the main focus for Jaheira is actually choosing between her loyalty to the Harpers and her loyalty to you, although more specifically its her deciding what she thinks is truly right in the situation, to side with her own or with you.
And I like that because I do think in this sort of game as much as is reasonable it should generally be about the player and their relationship with those characters and the impact on them.
I think the player should have control of the story and most of what happens in it, at least that's the point of a role playing game I feel, not just a videogame RPG but RPGs in general. I also think it's how videogame stories in general should also be approached because when they don't do that, when it comes to forcing the player into things, I find it forced and fake. Write a book if you want to do that kind of story, it goes against all the strengths of videogames as a medium.
Oh absolutely. I just wrote that example off the top of my head in a minute or so, so it definitely is not the best example
With DOS2, I had to abandon my playthrough because my computer couldn't run the game well enough for me to enjoy the game to the end, so I never saw how the companion stories played out fully. From what I saw, however, it did start to feel like my character was the supporting character to their stories, instead of the other way around... especially because I created my own PC, so I didn't have the unique story hook that all my NPC companions had.
"It sounds to me like you just want more unambiguously always lawful-good companions, and I think Larian prefers to make more 3 dimensional characters,"
this sound like your saying lawful good characters can't be 3 dimensional.
I've got an interesting idea, why dont you ask me what I meant rather than speculating? I'm right here.
No - I'll save you the post. I'll just literally tell you what I meant.
Lawful Good characters can absolutely be 3 dimensional. Characters whose response to every situation and every scenario is to only choose the "lawful" or "Good" option/response/action can be decidedly 1-note. It doesnt meant that character cannot be three dimensional although I believe it's much (much, much) harder for them to be both three dimensional and compelling. I emboldened the word in my initial post that reflects this. Not all characters are created equal.
Okay. I'm glad we've settled that I did not say "Lawful Good characters cant be 3 dimensional".
Keldorn was a pretty good example of three-dimensional lawful good character. Ajantis was a pretty good example of a two-dimensional character. Note, I'm not trying to criticize BG1, which clearly didn't focus on NPC depth the way BG2 did.
"It sounds to me like you just want more unambiguously always lawful-good companions, and I think Larian prefers to make more 3 dimensional characters,"
this sound like your saying lawful good characters can't be 3 dimensional.
I've got an interesting idea, why dont you ask me what I meant rather than speculating? I'm right here.
No - I'll save you the post. I'll just literally tell you what I meant.
Lawful Good characters can absolutely be 3 dimensional. Characters whose response to every situation and every scenario is to only choose the "lawful" or "Good" option/response/action can be decidedly 1-note. It doesnt meant that character cannot be three dimensional although I believe it's much (much, much) harder for them to be both three dimensional and compelling. I emboldened the word in my initial post that reflects this. Not all characters are created equal.
Okay. I'm glad we've settled that I did not say "Lawful Good characters cant be 3 dimensional".
Keldorn was a pretty good example of three-dimensional lawful good character. Ajantis was a pretty good example of a two-dimensional character. Note, I'm not trying to criticize BG1, which clearly didn't focus on NPC depth the way BG2 did.
Exactly this. Keldorn has interesting issues with his family, and is deeply prejudiced. Ajantis is just there and hates all evil party members. Full stop.
@BallpointMan Ajantis might be a simple chap with simple wants and needs, and he might sense evil wherever he goes be it a city, or dungeon or even a forest but he’s still my main tank in BG1 lol
Since I despise "edgelord" characters in games ...
(I know a lot of people are going to disagree with my impressions of these characters. They could say "But you never gave them a chance, you didn't finish the game to see how wonderful they all are." The point is that their dark personalities and cynical natures didn't make me *want* to get to know them any better.)
I think I get where @BelgarathMTH is coming from. I had to Google "edgelord" first and there's quite a bit of disagreement over the definition. But I think it would be fair to say that a lot of these characters have the "edgelord' template...but then later break down the cliche into a good character. It could be the game producers said..."ok, we want you to write the character for... Whose an undead dwarf floating head.... The writer than writes a great character arc, but the producer gave them an "edgelord' to start with.
I'd be interested to know what characters people love the most. I think you can make interesting characters without the "edgelord" template... Like for example a retired soldier who ended up working at the zoo and became a beast master... that would make him interesting from a gameplay point, but also a more down to earth background.
We see a lot of mod npcs... And those prove how difficult characters are. Personally I think a lot of them are great, but most people I know don't use any npc mods at all.
More news in this interview with Sven and the streamers JP, Cohh, and Zeke. Well, some are news, some are just confirmations of things we already know, to be honest
-The level cap will be higher than level 10 in the end.
-4-character-party plus followers and familiars.
-There´ll be more companions that the 5 we know, and they wouldn`t be in the neutral/evil spectre.
-Prize of the EA in several countries ( USD 59.99 for example)
-CR rating of the creatures will be tweaked to fit the game.
-Group vote interaction for MP when there´s a Cinematic dialogue.
-Everybody speaks common in BG3. If they are going to tweak or simply erase the race languages (especially the extra for half-elves), feats of backgrounds that offer extra languages; that´s something we do not know.
The thing here is that by buying BG3 in EA you're still buying BG3 which you will keep after the EA period is over. Why would it need to be lower if what you're buying is the same product?
"The average price of an Early Access game (for the base edition, as many of the Early Access games have multiple pricing options) is approximately $1 more than the full game release. This demonstrates that players are essentially being charged a premium for early access to the title."
"While some genres feature Early Access editions that are cheaper on average than the released version, other genres such as RPG have Early Access editions that are significantly more expensive than the final product. The RPG genre is a particularly strong example of this with Early Access editions that average $24.24 compared to the full game versions at $19.87."
So to have the full price for EA is standard and nothing to be ashamed of.
Yep, a bad (BAD) move on Larian's part. Only the most hardcore fans of this studio would be willing to purchase a demo in exchange of a AAA price tag. That's what Early Access really is, down on its core: a demo build of an unfinished product.
Other EA titles go about it smarter. By giving customers (who are willing to 'test' their unfinished product) a reduced price compared to the full release's price tag. The studio in question entices potential customers and manages to garner goodwill of a growing community.
Not like any of what Larian does affects me anyhow. Since I am not willing to purchase their newer products anyway. Be it EA or otherwise. *shrugs*
There are usually risks involved when you order an EA game, but in this case it´s a safe bet they´ré going to make the game and they do not really need to sell the game that much.
They have a lot of exposure already.
At least Larian is pretty straightforward when they tell you that it´s an Early Access when you buy the game at full price, unlike with the other EA (electronic arts)
"Vincke noted that Avernus will put players in moral dilemmas and often, players will be completely unaware of how their actions will impact down the road. As an example, Vincke revealed that Raphael, the devil shown in past gameplay footage, will at some point approach the player and their party members with an offer. The player will never know what their party members said yes to and even for secondary playthroughs, the devil will change his offers. Baldur’s Gate 3 will have several of these dynamic events which will endanger not only the player but also their party members."
Can I make a deal with a devil to make the game RTWP?
Jokes aside, we'll see how significant this decision ends up being on the broader story. Honestly, I was impressed to learn that we'd be able to use spells to talk to beasts and the dead (which I realize exist in PnP but this degree of interaction definitely didn't exist in the original games).
I'm not surprised to hear they are just sticking to common. Even in PnP languages can be tough to incorporate.
"The average price of an Early Access game (for the base edition, as many of the Early Access games have multiple pricing options) is approximately $1 more than the full game release. This demonstrates that players are essentially being charged a premium for early access to the title."
"While some genres feature Early Access editions that are cheaper on average than the released version, other genres such as RPG have Early Access editions that are significantly more expensive than the final product. The RPG genre is a particularly strong example of this with Early Access editions that average $24.24 compared to the full game versions at $19.87."
So to have the full price for EA is standard and nothing to be ashamed of.
Just because something is standard doesn't make it right.
The thing here is that by buying BG3 in EA you're still buying BG3 which you will keep after the EA period is over. Why would it need to be lower if what you're buying is the same product?
Because it's not the same product. You're paying for one chapter of the game, and to test the game for them, and the promise that they might deliver the rest some time later. It is not the same product. You're taking the risk here, so the price you pay should be discounted. Don't buy the pig in the sack, they say. I say don't buy the head of the pig for the full prjce and hope they're telling the truth when they say the rest will be delivered a year later.
Don't buy it then, you are not obliged to do that. Wait for the full release. But I don't understand why concerns (in this case, it's safe because it's Larian and their previous games are there for you to see) can decrease the price of the game when it will be the same game for everyone once it's released: those who bought it during EA or afterwards.
If something that is a standard in the field is not right, who and how should judge what is right, under what criteria it is right?
Some additional information from the interview @PsicoVic didn't mention:
They acknowledged a portion of the community may want 6-men parties because of BG 1&2, so they are already building the AI in a way that supports more than 4 party members: if people want to make mods that expand the party limits, they will be able to.
And about modding - they want to have a modding scene, but since their resources are all focused on developing the game at the moment, it will take time for the modding tools to be ready. But they will come.
The companions they have introduced so far and that will be in Early Access are Evil/Neutral aligned. There will be more (and there should be those who lean more towards Good alignments). In the meantime, the advice is to use the EA to explore more Evil oriented paths (that people tend not to choose for their main playthroughs, usually - remember https://www.kotaku.com.au/2020/02/almost-nobody-played-a-bad-guy-in-mass-effect/ ?).
I'm not surprised to hear they are just sticking to common. Even in PnP languages can be tough to incorporate.
I would say in PnP it is actually *more* difficult, unless a DM is willing to pass around a full transcript of what the orcs are saying to just those in the party who understand Orcish.
A number of games do differing languages well. An example from Dragon Age Inquisition: an elven party member has a somewhat private conversation with a spirit in Elvish. If your protagonist is also an elf however the conversation/cutscene shows it as English/Common.
Similar things could still be done in BG3. Translating massive chunks of the game into Elvish, Dwarvish, etc. would be a logistical nightmare, so let's just file the fact that everybody in the whole world shares at least one common language (where it matters) under the header "suspension of disbelief".
But I don't understand why concerns (in this case, it's safe because it's Larian and their previous games are there for you to see) can decrease the price of the game when it will be the same game for everyone once it's released: those who bought it during EA or afterwards.
Early Access is always a risk, no matter how small or large a dev team is. The reasons differ from studio, to studio. Some go bankrupt during development - leading to forever unfinished games. Others scrap many features the EA phase had in their final product, leading to a worse gaming experience for ex-testers. At other times a studio might even foregoe to release it on the relevant test platform altogether due to a new exclusivity deal. All these things actually happened before.
Other EA titles go about it smarter. By giving customers (who are willing to 'test' their unfinished product) a reduced price compared to the full release's price tag. The studio in question entices potential customers and manages to garner goodwill of a growing community.
As I previously mentioned: giving potential EA customers incentives in form of an appealing deal has been a successful way of making the possible risks palatable enough for gamers. If Larian's goal was indeed for as many people as possible to test their game and to provide crucial feedback... they would do way better to provide a, say, 25% off the retail price deal during the EA phase: more customers providing said feedback and thus healthier EA sale figures that way. Since again only a very vocal minority will actually be willing to shell out 60 bucks for an Early Access title. So the netted feedback Larian will receive is guaranteed to be limited at best.
If something that is a standard in the field is not right, who and how should judge what is right, under what criteria it is right?
Easy: it is a balance act. Say, a studio or publisher tries something and receives a huge backlash for it. Elecronic Arts has for instance tried to make 70 bucks the new 'standard' pricing for PC games and got a black eye for it. The same also happened with loot boxes that got out of hand. And now get outlawed in more and more countries as a result. So yeah. It is indeed a balancing act that largely depends on gauging the tolerance of the consumers.
[
I'm not surprised to hear they are just sticking to common. Even in PnP languages can be tough to incorporate.
The unique CRPG which I saw incorporating language is believe or not, Gothic 2 - RETURNING. To be able to read powerful grimoires which are all written on demonic language(abyssal in D&D therms), you need to convince with the righ dialog lines Kreole to teach it to you. Most tablets found in jharkendar are written in ancient language and you need to learn it to read then from Water Mages. Orc language is required to do many quests and a isolated orc and a book in Xardas old tower can teach it to you.
A lot of orcs doesn't speak "common".
Reading books also gives bonus to your character intellect and ret is not a game where you can train your intelligence like you can train INT/DEX...
Comments
Red Prince is kind of great. I agree he's a bit of a buffoon, in an "out of touch" kind of way.
we need more party members like Erritis from tides of numanara in games.
I didnt say that, but you do you.
this sound like your saying lawful good characters can't be 3 dimensional.
I've got an interesting idea, why dont you ask me what I meant rather than speculating? I'm right here.
No - I'll save you the post. I'll just literally tell you what I meant.
Lawful Good characters can absolutely be 3 dimensional. Characters whose response to every situation and every scenario is to only choose the "lawful" or "Good" option/response/action can be decidedly 1-note. It doesnt meant that character cannot be three dimensional although I believe it's much (much, much) harder for them to be both three dimensional and compelling. I emboldened the word in my initial post that reflects this. Not all characters are created equal.
Okay. I'm glad we've settled that I did not say "Lawful Good characters cant be 3 dimensional".
Which does not end up being what they do with her character. I feel like that's a generic description that probably would be likely what that character put in another game might be , but in BG2 the main thing not there is the revenge concept. She never really expresses a desire that she has to make Irenicus pay. She definitely expresses a lot of sorrow for Khalid's death, and whilst her romance seems a little bit off for it to happen so quickly after his death, (I haven't played it out myself so can't judge it otherwise) but if not doing that, the main focus for Jaheira is actually choosing between her loyalty to the Harpers and her loyalty to you, although more specifically its her deciding what she thinks is truly right in the situation, to side with her own or with you.
And I like that because I do think in this sort of game as much as is reasonable it should generally be about the player and their relationship with those characters and the impact on them.
I think the player should have control of the story and most of what happens in it, at least that's the point of a role playing game I feel, not just a videogame RPG but RPGs in general. I also think it's how videogame stories in general should also be approached because when they don't do that, when it comes to forcing the player into things, I find it forced and fake. Write a book if you want to do that kind of story, it goes against all the strengths of videogames as a medium.
Seems like a retcon to me :P
Oh absolutely. I just wrote that example off the top of my head in a minute or so, so it definitely is not the best example
With DOS2, I had to abandon my playthrough because my computer couldn't run the game well enough for me to enjoy the game to the end, so I never saw how the companion stories played out fully. From what I saw, however, it did start to feel like my character was the supporting character to their stories, instead of the other way around... especially because I created my own PC, so I didn't have the unique story hook that all my NPC companions had.
Keldorn was a pretty good example of three-dimensional lawful good character. Ajantis was a pretty good example of a two-dimensional character. Note, I'm not trying to criticize BG1, which clearly didn't focus on NPC depth the way BG2 did.
Exactly this. Keldorn has interesting issues with his family, and is deeply prejudiced. Ajantis is just there and hates all evil party members. Full stop.
I think I get where @BelgarathMTH is coming from. I had to Google "edgelord" first and there's quite a bit of disagreement over the definition. But I think it would be fair to say that a lot of these characters have the "edgelord' template...but then later break down the cliche into a good character. It could be the game producers said..."ok, we want you to write the character for... Whose an undead dwarf floating head.... The writer than writes a great character arc, but the producer gave them an "edgelord' to start with.
I'd be interested to know what characters people love the most. I think you can make interesting characters without the "edgelord" template... Like for example a retired soldier who ended up working at the zoo and became a beast master... that would make him interesting from a gameplay point, but also a more down to earth background.
We see a lot of mod npcs... And those prove how difficult characters are. Personally I think a lot of them are great, but most people I know don't use any npc mods at all.
You should read the Meme thread. That one goes everywhere. There are even memes being posted
-The level cap will be higher than level 10 in the end.
-4-character-party plus followers and familiars.
-There´ll be more companions that the 5 we know, and they wouldn`t be in the neutral/evil spectre.
-Prize of the EA in several countries ( USD 59.99 for example)
-CR rating of the creatures will be tweaked to fit the game.
-Group vote interaction for MP when there´s a Cinematic dialogue.
-Everybody speaks common in BG3. If they are going to tweak or simply erase the race languages (especially the extra for half-elves), feats of backgrounds that offer extra languages; that´s something we do not know.
This is totally fine! You can check about some other experiences on the pricing of EA titles: https://steamcommunity.com/discussions/forum/1/2595630410192074686/
The thing here is that by buying BG3 in EA you're still buying BG3 which you will keep after the EA period is over. Why would it need to be lower if what you're buying is the same product?
Also, from https://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2014-11-13-early-access-popularity-growing-but-only-25-percent-have-released-as-a-full-game
"The average price of an Early Access game (for the base edition, as many of the Early Access games have multiple pricing options) is approximately $1 more than the full game release. This demonstrates that players are essentially being charged a premium for early access to the title."
"While some genres feature Early Access editions that are cheaper on average than the released version, other genres such as RPG have Early Access editions that are significantly more expensive than the final product. The RPG genre is a particularly strong example of this with Early Access editions that average $24.24 compared to the full game versions at $19.87."
So to have the full price for EA is standard and nothing to be ashamed of.
Other EA titles go about it smarter. By giving customers (who are willing to 'test' their unfinished product) a reduced price compared to the full release's price tag. The studio in question entices potential customers and manages to garner goodwill of a growing community.
Not like any of what Larian does affects me anyhow. Since I am not willing to purchase their newer products anyway. Be it EA or otherwise. *shrugs*
They have a lot of exposure already.
At least Larian is pretty straightforward when they tell you that it´s an Early Access when you buy the game at full price, unlike with the other EA (electronic arts)
Can I make a deal with a devil to make the game RTWP?
Jokes aside, we'll see how significant this decision ends up being on the broader story. Honestly, I was impressed to learn that we'd be able to use spells to talk to beasts and the dead (which I realize exist in PnP but this degree of interaction definitely didn't exist in the original games).
I'm not surprised to hear they are just sticking to common. Even in PnP languages can be tough to incorporate.
Just because something is standard doesn't make it right.
Because it's not the same product. You're paying for one chapter of the game, and to test the game for them, and the promise that they might deliver the rest some time later. It is not the same product. You're taking the risk here, so the price you pay should be discounted. Don't buy the pig in the sack, they say. I say don't buy the head of the pig for the full prjce and hope they're telling the truth when they say the rest will be delivered a year later.
If something that is a standard in the field is not right, who and how should judge what is right, under what criteria it is right?
They acknowledged a portion of the community may want 6-men parties because of BG 1&2, so they are already building the AI in a way that supports more than 4 party members: if people want to make mods that expand the party limits, they will be able to.
And about modding - they want to have a modding scene, but since their resources are all focused on developing the game at the moment, it will take time for the modding tools to be ready. But they will come.
The companions they have introduced so far and that will be in Early Access are Evil/Neutral aligned. There will be more (and there should be those who lean more towards Good alignments). In the meantime, the advice is to use the EA to explore more Evil oriented paths (that people tend not to choose for their main playthroughs, usually - remember https://www.kotaku.com.au/2020/02/almost-nobody-played-a-bad-guy-in-mass-effect/ ?).
I would say in PnP it is actually *more* difficult, unless a DM is willing to pass around a full transcript of what the orcs are saying to just those in the party who understand Orcish.
A number of games do differing languages well. An example from Dragon Age Inquisition: an elven party member has a somewhat private conversation with a spirit in Elvish. If your protagonist is also an elf however the conversation/cutscene shows it as English/Common.
Similar things could still be done in BG3. Translating massive chunks of the game into Elvish, Dwarvish, etc. would be a logistical nightmare, so let's just file the fact that everybody in the whole world shares at least one common language (where it matters) under the header "suspension of disbelief".
Easy: it is a balance act. Say, a studio or publisher tries something and receives a huge backlash for it. Elecronic Arts has for instance tried to make 70 bucks the new 'standard' pricing for PC games and got a black eye for it. The same also happened with loot boxes that got out of hand. And now get outlawed in more and more countries as a result. So yeah. It is indeed a balancing act that largely depends on gauging the tolerance of the consumers.
The unique CRPG which I saw incorporating language is believe or not, Gothic 2 - RETURNING. To be able to read powerful grimoires which are all written on demonic language(abyssal in D&D therms), you need to convince with the righ dialog lines Kreole to teach it to you. Most tablets found in jharkendar are written in ancient language and you need to learn it to read then from Water Mages. Orc language is required to do many quests and a isolated orc and a book in Xardas old tower can teach it to you.
A lot of orcs doesn't speak "common".
Reading books also gives bonus to your character intellect and ret is not a game where you can train your intelligence like you can train INT/DEX...