So it seems to me that they do want to make the Mind Flayer tadpole the source of moral and role playing choices. I think that will be difficult. The tadpole turns a living thing into a mindflayer and subsumes entirely the previous identity as far as is known by the people of the setting. That's why it really is not equatable to something like what the Bhaalspawn goes through, there really is nothing that should make anybody want to push their way towards that transformation, this isn't good vs evil; this is aiding a parasite to erase yourself. You can make that an element of tension in extreme situations but that's something that would only work once or twice before becoming obviously stupid.
I don't think this is an unreasonable argument, but I have to disagree that it doesn't compare to the Bhaalspawn. I certainly think it has a strong analog in the Slayer, which transforms you physically into a monstrous creature and at certain events into something you can't control. And from a tactical perspective it transforms every non-melee fighter class into something quite unlike what they are in their base form.
Yes, it's not *exactly* the same. But again, do people want a derivative game or do they want a sequel?
I certainly think it has a strong analog in the Slayer, which transforms you physically into a monstrous creature and at certain events into something you can't control. And from a tactical perspective it transforms every non-melee fighter class into something quite unlike what they are in their base form.
Yes, it's not *exactly* the same. But again, do people want a derivative game or do they want a sequel?
From a gameplay standpoint, yes it is similar, but my criticism is based on the writing, which I do think is the most important aspect of this kind of RPG. I have entirely lost the will to play RPGs in the past because their storytelling lost me or was just dreadful. And story is really what concerns me the most with Larian. I also have issues with how they designed character and encounter progression in the Original Sin games, but for now all I can really observe from is what information is seen in videos and given out in interviews. And you didn't really make any response to the storytelling logic aspect of what I said. Which granted, until we know more there's not much more that can be said about it.
As for the storytelling, you become the Slayer form after Irenicus completes his plan with you in Spellhold and are told by the plot that you have to defeat him to reverse this. So I think there very much is a plot similarity here.
As for the storytelling, you become the Slayer form after Irenicus completes his plan with you in Spellhold and are told by the plot that you have to defeat him to reverse this. So I think there very much is a plot similarity here.
Yeah, a derivative and artificial similarity. However the Slayer is still part and parcel with who the Bhaalspawn is, it is not an invasion of something external to their identity. As for why they might use the form, there's explainable reasons for that. I resorted to using the form to kill Bodhi and then finally Irenicus the original time I finished the game. It gave me the edge I needed. But at the end of the day use of the form is incidental and the main focus of the plot is still on the Bhaalspawn recovering their soul and later on deciding the nature of their ending.
The issue is Why. With every choice a player needs to make in the story, what would motivate them to start making use of something that they know is changing them from the inside out, into something else, at the total expense of their identity. See I really like stories that explore this sort of thing, of like an inner darkness or beast that torments the protagonist and bends them this way or that morally, its one of the reasons I like the Bhaalspawn storyline as much as I do. But for it to work, it has to be convincingly ambiguous of what the character is going through and we have to buy into why they make certain choices.
Based on what we know about Mind Flayers, they're going to have to add a lot to make a convincing case of why there's really any drama involved over not doing the immediately obvious thing and getting it removed. Right now its a bit like having a Xenomorph inside you, its kind of terminal unless its cured ASAP.
Yes, it is an invasion of their identity. You're literally told that the Slayer form will eventually consume your character if you don't stop Irenicus. This was not something baked into being a Bhaalspawn but rather a product of Irenicus' meddling. This adds some evil or neutral player motivation to stop him, if you don't care about the elves.
Seems to be a kind of Goldilocks requirement with the plot similarities here. Has to somehow hit just right. Personally, I don't get the need to pick apart something that we don't fully know and that shouldn't be exactly like the original saga anyways. I think the similarity is undeniable -- and I don't see why it has to be just right to be acceptable.
I'm neutral about it right now, to be clear. But it's a similar theme to part of the original saga. I mean do we want the main character to be another godspawn? That would seem like an unimaginative way for them to do it.
Seems to be a kind of Goldilocks requirement with the plot similarities here. Has to somehow hit just right
No, I'm just looking for sense in what's been said about the game's concept so far, and I think you're just sliding around the goalposts on that, you aren't really addressing the main point I've been making that really is only pertinent to BG3 within itself.
I mean, I recognise that more information is needed, and to be honest the way you're comparing this game to the previous one is not doing it favours, by pointing out what makes it a weaker copy of a prior game instead of something genuinely different.
I haven't slid around any goalposts, I've stated a clear analog and doubled down on that same point. It's weird to say that the two are somehow not analogous because you don't like the BG3 idea. That's fine, but they're undeniably comparable.
I haven't slid around any goalposts, I've stated a clear analog and doubled down on that same point. It's weird to say that the two are somehow not analogous because you don't like the BG3 idea. That's fine, but they're undeniably comparable.
Because there is a very clear objective difference that you're either ignoring or not grasping.
WHY. INTENT. The intent is never in doubt in BG2 with the Bhaalspawn. The taint of Bhaal is a path towards a destiny on which the protagonist must tread, with the choices they make along the way ultimately informing the choices they make towards the end. When it comes to the Slayer, it happens because of Irenicus but then the player has a clear goal there. The point of that plot development is to make the need to chase Irenicus and finally defeat him an absolute, only path for the player at that point.
What I am saying is that in the BG3 scenario as discussed, they talk about the tadpole as if any of these characters would have reasons at all to not want them out of their bodies post haste. There is just no credible intent to that, not with the information we have. Now there might be something we don't know that makes it work, fine, but you're making your comparisons on that, and its a faulty comparison.
And if you're going to say its not, then
if any of these characters would have reasons at all to not want them out of their bodies post haste
This is the point I want an answer on, it's the only thing that's actually relevant anyway. And if you're going to say "well we don't know that yet", I cede that point... nothing else you've said was actually relevant to it.
All I said was that the two were analogous. You're arguing that they need to be something more than that. I fail to see why that's necessary.
I also think you're misrepresenting what I recall of BG3 from the released information. In the gameplay video, the cleric NPC makes it pretty inarguable that they absolutely must find a healer, no questions asked. "Find a healer" was I think unquestionably the first main-story quest we saw in that video.
So, I dunno what you're arguing here. It seems you're reading into things here. All I know is when our protagonists were walking around in that scrubby desert, they, as characters, clearly were given the singular motivation of curing this ailment, ASAP.
Now maybe Larian hinted that the quest doesn't have to be solved the way our character are currently expecting to solve it. That implies that something happens along the way to this healer. It doesn't seem to imply that they will conclude otherwise on their own.
I see no reason to come to any conclusion about that complication for the time being. I think that's an accurate summary of what we know, but I could have mis-remembered something. And again, none of this is to say that the plot *needs* to resemble what it did in BG2, I think it's quite inarguable that the two situations are similar. I never said they were identical, nor that they need to be.
Also, fwiw, you don't have to rush off in Chapter 6 to face Irenicus. You can fart around for months completing all the missed sidequests, and spend weeks collecting gold off your stronghold if you had that option. This is not a criticism of BG2, which had its limitations. But it's important to note that even though the character had this singular motivation, the player suffered, afaik, no gameplay consequences for ignoring it. In terms of character, there seems to be not much of a difference with BG3 MacGuffin. The *characters*, we're told, have all the motivation in the world to cure this thing.
Edit to add: That this will have consequences in BG3 doesn't strike me as bad, if anything it's an improvement. Maybe a knowledgeable *player* will want to experiment more with becoming a mindflayer, that doesn't change what the characters appear to want though.
So it seems to me that they do want to make the Mind Flayer tadpole the source of moral and role playing choices. I think that will be difficult. The tadpole turns a living thing into a mindflayer and subsumes entirely the previous identity as far as is known by the people of the setting. That's why it really is not equatable to something like what the Bhaalspawn goes through, there really is nothing that should make anybody want to push their way towards that transformation, this isn't good vs evil; this is aiding a parasite to erase yourself. You can make that an element of tension in extreme situations but that's something that would only work once or twice before becoming obviously stupid.
Now maybe we don't have information that makes this concept make more sense, but as it is, I do not see how it will work. And if this is the situation they're set on and there is nothing additional to make it work, it's something that will not only not make sense within the setting, it's not going to make sense as a story.
I brought up something very similar to this on the Larian BG3 subforum. I will only play good-aligned characters. As such, I would want to utterly and completely reject and resist the tadpole, up to and including trying to get the tadpole out of me even at the cost of my death. So then what happens to my character? Is it "game over" if I choose to play that way? Or even if it is only that I choose to reject everything to do with the tadpole, including its powers. Do I get to then play a weak character who gave up awesome powers for no gain other than personal player satisfaction? Seems decidedly unfair. So either way, a player like me gets screwed.
Can we compare the mind flayer tadpole with Bhaal's Ethereal Spermatozoa +5? I mean, both have tails, both are the source of the "evil" in the games, and both get... uhh... "impregnated" into an unwilling entity.
WHY. INTENT. The intent is never in doubt in BG2 with the Bhaalspawn. The taint of Bhaal is a path towards a destiny on which the protagonist must tread, with the choices they make along the way ultimately informing the choices they make towards the end. When it comes to the Slayer, it happens because of Irenicus but then the player has a clear goal there. The point of that plot development is to make the need to chase Irenicus and finally defeat him an absolute, only path for the player at that point.
This is the point I want an answer on, it's the only thing that's actually relevant anyway. And if you're going to say "well we don't know that yet", I cede that point... nothing else you've said was actually relevant to it.
I havent seen any goalpost shifting. I think this point above is also unfair because you're comparing the fully fleshed out plot of BG2, this part not being revealed specifically until the middle of the game (and then expanded upon significantly in ToB) to... a cinematic and a handful of interviews from a game we havent played.
Really - this sort of speaks to a larger point @DinoDin and I have both been putting forward: It's hard to fairly judge a game on merits that we are all mostly in the dark about. It's not overly fair to compare the plot of BG3 (as we know it) and complain about plot holes or inconsistencies.
I will full agree that if the "giving in" to the tadpole is essentially the same as agreeing to become mindflayer, that's bad writing and a dumb choice. We dont really know if that is specifically giving in means yet.
No one who is excited about the game has suggested the story is a masterpiece... because no one who is excited *knows* what the story is yet. We're excited because mindflayers are interesting enemies (subjective) and the the idea of the tadpole is intriguing, and I'm interested in seeing where they take it.
I would find it very likely that BG3's first quest (finding a healer as it were) will end with the characters undergoing a Dragon Age/Grey Warden-style process that turns the Bad Thing into something that can be used by the PC. The tadpole will then turn into a Mask of the Betrayer-esque mechanic where you can either give in to the evils of the ceremorphosis in exchange for power or resist it (perhaps giving you other bonuses if we are lucky). There's also the chance that they do the "it was a special tadpole to begin with so it's not a normal ceremorphosis" kind of explanation. These are some quick theories that just make sense as a both as narrative and game mechanic. I got the impression that they're really want to push the "ceremorphosis gives you psionic powers" line from the parts of the demonstration I watched. Mastering the tadpole instead of the tadpole mastering you will likely be a narrative line.
But yeah I think the above two games will be much better analogues than the origin BG couple. Both the Mask of the Betrayed and the Darkspawn curse was something foisted upon the character, an outside force changing them. The main difference with BG is that the Bhaalspawn essence is something that is inherent to the character. The tadpole, like the first two examples, are something external which invades the character.
So yeah. That's the point @kanisatha was making, I think. Aside for that, they too are analogous.
One thing to note here is that according to many YT videos SoD was full of progressive ideas and nothing else. It wasn't quite similar in-game, but the social opinion had been created. One of the best questions one could ask any internet person shouting about killing the childhood games, favorite characters etc. was: "Have you actually played SoD? Have you actually seen Safana / Jaheira / new NPCS?"
I'm a day late on this one, but I'll go on the record as saying I'd bet huge amounts of money that 80% of the people who complained about Siege of Dragonspear couldn't describe what thac0 is an acronym for if someone held a gun to their head.
I havent seen any goalpost shifting. I think this point above is also unfair because you're comparing the fully fleshed out plot of BG2, this part not being revealed specifically until the middle of the game (and then expanded upon significantly in ToB) to... a cinematic and a handful of interviews from a game we havent played.
Really - this sort of speaks to a larger point @DinoDin and I have both been putting forward: It's hard to fairly judge a game on merits that we are all mostly in the dark about.
I said my comments were criticising what we know, and I said my criticism was based on the things said on the article. It's very fair to point out that we need more information, and I said that multiple times. I did not get his insistence on otherwise comparing it to BG2 as if that was trying to prove some point which wasn't relevant.
@jjstraka34 what happened to Siege of Dragonspear in terms of review bombing was disgraceful on every level. I try my best to look at things from all sides/opinions but that whole situation was just horrible. It also made me avoid these forums for quite a long time after as I couldn’t stand reading a lot of it.
I havent seen any goalpost shifting. I think this point above is also unfair because you're comparing the fully fleshed out plot of BG2, this part not being revealed specifically until the middle of the game (and then expanded upon significantly in ToB) to... a cinematic and a handful of interviews from a game we havent played.
Really - this sort of speaks to a larger point @DinoDin and I have both been putting forward: It's hard to fairly judge a game on merits that we are all mostly in the dark about.
I said my comments were criticising what we know, and I said my criticism was based on the things said on the article. It's very fair to point out that we need more information, and I said that multiple times. I did not get his insistence on otherwise comparing it to BG2 as if that was trying to prove some point which wasn't relevant.
Just to point out: You're the one who started that comparison, as a point of criticism. You did mention in that same post that we need more information, but you're still criticizing it and comparing it against a finished and well defined product. I'll quote the relevant part for you: Emphasis mine.
So it seems to me that they do want to make the Mind Flayer tadpole the source of moral and role playing choices. I think that will be difficult. The tadpole turns a living thing into a mindflayer and subsumes entirely the previous identity as far as is known by the people of the setting. That's why it really is not equatable to something like what the Bhaalspawn goes through, there really is nothing that should make anybody want to push their way towards that transformation,
Just to point out: You're the one who started that comparison, as a point of criticism. You did mention in that same post that we need more information, but you're still criticizing it and comparing it against a finished and well defined product. I'll quote the relevant part for you: Emphasis mine.
Well, I did that partially because someone *has* stated a similarity in an offhand comment just on this information, which would be @byrne20. But there is another reason, which is from what was said in the article, it seems like the tadpole is going to be a big story focus and role playing focus in a similar way to how the Bhaalspawn's taint was. It's not unfair to judge how it compares for the moment.
But making criticisms towards unfinished products based on what we do see and hear of them is fair as long as one acknowledges that the criticisms might be very well addressed as more information comes out. Because if they are, good, if they're not, they stand.
For the moment my opinion is malleable, and I'm just going to wait and see now based on when more information comes to light.
Yes @hybridial is indeed correct. I did originally make my own point about feeling that there are similarities between the influence of the Bhaal essence and the Mind Flayer tadpole. I still stand by that point as well. Whilst I think @hybridial does make some very fair points I still think that there is a decent comparison that seems to me Larian have purposely gone for. It definitely doesn’t mean it isn’t slightly flawed but like other people are saying, we don’t have all the information about story yet so it’s hard to be 100% certain where they are going with it.
Has anyone else noticed that this mindflayer and tadpoles story is starting to sound an awfully lot like it was taken from Stargate? It's starting to make me think of Goa'uld, Jaffa, and Tokra.
I wonder if it will be possible to be like T'ealc and live with the "symbiote" and its enhancements without going full-on Goa'uld?
Could there be a Tokra-like resistance among the mindflayers where the "Tokra" rebel against the morality of the "Goa'uld" and attempt to live in harmony with their hosts?
Of course, the more this winds up sounding identical to Stargate, maybe even ripped off from it, the more I'll be putting my tongue in my cheek and maybe laughing at material that was meant as serious.
So it seems to me that they do want to make the Mind Flayer tadpole the source of moral and role playing choices. I think that will be difficult. The tadpole turns a living thing into a mindflayer and subsumes entirely the previous identity as far as is known by the people of the setting. That's why it really is not equatable to something like what the Bhaalspawn goes through, there really is nothing that should make anybody want to push their way towards that transformation, this isn't good vs evil; this is aiding a parasite to erase yourself. You can make that an element of tension in extreme situations but that's something that would only work once or twice before becoming obviously stupid.
Now maybe we don't have information that makes this concept make more sense, but as it is, I do not see how it will work. And if this is the situation they're set on and there is nothing additional to make it work, it's something that will not only not make sense within the setting, it's not going to make sense as a story.
I brought up something very similar to this on the Larian BG3 subforum. I will only play good-aligned characters. As such, I would want to utterly and completely reject and resist the tadpole, up to and including trying to get the tadpole out of me even at the cost of my death. So then what happens to my character? Is it "game over" if I choose to play that way? Or even if it is only that I choose to reject everything to do with the tadpole, including its powers. Do I get to then play a weak character who gave up awesome powers for no gain other than personal player satisfaction? Seems decidedly unfair. So either way, a player like me gets screwed.
After the last gameplay, it seems you have more options to deal with the tadpole. Namely, Raphael the Cambion, which is like having to choose between the shadow thieves or Bodhi... the evil or the even worse evil haha.
I hope there´s a third way for replayability purposes.
Of course, the more this winds up sounding identical to Stargate, maybe even ripped off from it, the more I'll be putting my tongue in my cheek and maybe laughing at material that was meant as serious.
Oh man, there´s still reruns of that series in Scy-fi channel.Good times. Now that you point it out yes, the ceremorphosis thing is very D&D but the way it´s treated looks similar to Stargate.
It wouldn´t be strange. Mass effect races were heavily influenced by the classic "Farscape" series.
So it seems to me that they do want to make the Mind Flayer tadpole the source of moral and role playing choices. I think that will be difficult. The tadpole turns a living thing into a mindflayer and subsumes entirely the previous identity as far as is known by the people of the setting. That's why it really is not equatable to something like what the Bhaalspawn goes through, there really is nothing that should make anybody want to push their way towards that transformation, this isn't good vs evil; this is aiding a parasite to erase yourself. You can make that an element of tension in extreme situations but that's something that would only work once or twice before becoming obviously stupid.
Now maybe we don't have information that makes this concept make more sense, but as it is, I do not see how it will work. And if this is the situation they're set on and there is nothing additional to make it work, it's something that will not only not make sense within the setting, it's not going to make sense as a story.
I brought up something very similar to this on the Larian BG3 subforum. I will only play good-aligned characters. As such, I would want to utterly and completely reject and resist the tadpole, up to and including trying to get the tadpole out of me even at the cost of my death. So then what happens to my character? Is it "game over" if I choose to play that way? Or even if it is only that I choose to reject everything to do with the tadpole, including its powers. Do I get to then play a weak character who gave up awesome powers for no gain other than personal player satisfaction? Seems decidedly unfair. So either way, a player like me gets screwed.
After the last gameplay, it seems you have more options to deal with the tadpole. Namely, Raphael the Cambion, which is like having to choose between the shadow thieves or Bodhi... the evil or the even worse evil haha.
I hope there´s a third way for replayability purposes.
Ok, but my point is not about options for getting rid of the tadpole. I was always sure those options would be there. My point is: what benefits do you get from not using the tadpole or getting rid of the tadpole? We know the benefits to using the tadpole. What's the other side?
Comments
"The game will be awesome and the best game ever made - "logical" and "reasonable" and most importantly, allowed."
Can you link to a post where someone said this?
I don't think this is an unreasonable argument, but I have to disagree that it doesn't compare to the Bhaalspawn. I certainly think it has a strong analog in the Slayer, which transforms you physically into a monstrous creature and at certain events into something you can't control. And from a tactical perspective it transforms every non-melee fighter class into something quite unlike what they are in their base form.
Yes, it's not *exactly* the same. But again, do people want a derivative game or do they want a sequel?
From a gameplay standpoint, yes it is similar, but my criticism is based on the writing, which I do think is the most important aspect of this kind of RPG. I have entirely lost the will to play RPGs in the past because their storytelling lost me or was just dreadful. And story is really what concerns me the most with Larian. I also have issues with how they designed character and encounter progression in the Original Sin games, but for now all I can really observe from is what information is seen in videos and given out in interviews. And you didn't really make any response to the storytelling logic aspect of what I said. Which granted, until we know more there's not much more that can be said about it.
Yeah, a derivative and artificial similarity. However the Slayer is still part and parcel with who the Bhaalspawn is, it is not an invasion of something external to their identity. As for why they might use the form, there's explainable reasons for that. I resorted to using the form to kill Bodhi and then finally Irenicus the original time I finished the game. It gave me the edge I needed. But at the end of the day use of the form is incidental and the main focus of the plot is still on the Bhaalspawn recovering their soul and later on deciding the nature of their ending.
The issue is Why. With every choice a player needs to make in the story, what would motivate them to start making use of something that they know is changing them from the inside out, into something else, at the total expense of their identity. See I really like stories that explore this sort of thing, of like an inner darkness or beast that torments the protagonist and bends them this way or that morally, its one of the reasons I like the Bhaalspawn storyline as much as I do. But for it to work, it has to be convincingly ambiguous of what the character is going through and we have to buy into why they make certain choices.
Based on what we know about Mind Flayers, they're going to have to add a lot to make a convincing case of why there's really any drama involved over not doing the immediately obvious thing and getting it removed. Right now its a bit like having a Xenomorph inside you, its kind of terminal unless its cured ASAP.
Seems to be a kind of Goldilocks requirement with the plot similarities here. Has to somehow hit just right. Personally, I don't get the need to pick apart something that we don't fully know and that shouldn't be exactly like the original saga anyways. I think the similarity is undeniable -- and I don't see why it has to be just right to be acceptable.
I'm neutral about it right now, to be clear. But it's a similar theme to part of the original saga. I mean do we want the main character to be another godspawn? That would seem like an unimaginative way for them to do it.
No, I'm just looking for sense in what's been said about the game's concept so far, and I think you're just sliding around the goalposts on that, you aren't really addressing the main point I've been making that really is only pertinent to BG3 within itself.
I mean, I recognise that more information is needed, and to be honest the way you're comparing this game to the previous one is not doing it favours, by pointing out what makes it a weaker copy of a prior game instead of something genuinely different.
Because there is a very clear objective difference that you're either ignoring or not grasping.
WHY. INTENT. The intent is never in doubt in BG2 with the Bhaalspawn. The taint of Bhaal is a path towards a destiny on which the protagonist must tread, with the choices they make along the way ultimately informing the choices they make towards the end. When it comes to the Slayer, it happens because of Irenicus but then the player has a clear goal there. The point of that plot development is to make the need to chase Irenicus and finally defeat him an absolute, only path for the player at that point.
What I am saying is that in the BG3 scenario as discussed, they talk about the tadpole as if any of these characters would have reasons at all to not want them out of their bodies post haste. There is just no credible intent to that, not with the information we have. Now there might be something we don't know that makes it work, fine, but you're making your comparisons on that, and its a faulty comparison.
And if you're going to say its not, then
This is the point I want an answer on, it's the only thing that's actually relevant anyway. And if you're going to say "well we don't know that yet", I cede that point... nothing else you've said was actually relevant to it.
I also think you're misrepresenting what I recall of BG3 from the released information. In the gameplay video, the cleric NPC makes it pretty inarguable that they absolutely must find a healer, no questions asked. "Find a healer" was I think unquestionably the first main-story quest we saw in that video.
So, I dunno what you're arguing here. It seems you're reading into things here. All I know is when our protagonists were walking around in that scrubby desert, they, as characters, clearly were given the singular motivation of curing this ailment, ASAP.
Now maybe Larian hinted that the quest doesn't have to be solved the way our character are currently expecting to solve it. That implies that something happens along the way to this healer. It doesn't seem to imply that they will conclude otherwise on their own.
I see no reason to come to any conclusion about that complication for the time being. I think that's an accurate summary of what we know, but I could have mis-remembered something. And again, none of this is to say that the plot *needs* to resemble what it did in BG2, I think it's quite inarguable that the two situations are similar. I never said they were identical, nor that they need to be.
Edit to add: That this will have consequences in BG3 doesn't strike me as bad, if anything it's an improvement. Maybe a knowledgeable *player* will want to experiment more with becoming a mindflayer, that doesn't change what the characters appear to want though.
I brought up something very similar to this on the Larian BG3 subforum. I will only play good-aligned characters. As such, I would want to utterly and completely reject and resist the tadpole, up to and including trying to get the tadpole out of me even at the cost of my death. So then what happens to my character? Is it "game over" if I choose to play that way? Or even if it is only that I choose to reject everything to do with the tadpole, including its powers. Do I get to then play a weak character who gave up awesome powers for no gain other than personal player satisfaction? Seems decidedly unfair. So either way, a player like me gets screwed.
I havent seen any goalpost shifting. I think this point above is also unfair because you're comparing the fully fleshed out plot of BG2, this part not being revealed specifically until the middle of the game (and then expanded upon significantly in ToB) to... a cinematic and a handful of interviews from a game we havent played.
Really - this sort of speaks to a larger point @DinoDin and I have both been putting forward: It's hard to fairly judge a game on merits that we are all mostly in the dark about. It's not overly fair to compare the plot of BG3 (as we know it) and complain about plot holes or inconsistencies.
I will full agree that if the "giving in" to the tadpole is essentially the same as agreeing to become mindflayer, that's bad writing and a dumb choice. We dont really know if that is specifically giving in means yet.
No one who is excited about the game has suggested the story is a masterpiece... because no one who is excited *knows* what the story is yet. We're excited because mindflayers are interesting enemies (subjective) and the the idea of the tadpole is intriguing, and I'm interested in seeing where they take it.
But yeah I think the above two games will be much better analogues than the origin BG couple. Both the Mask of the Betrayed and the Darkspawn curse was something foisted upon the character, an outside force changing them. The main difference with BG is that the Bhaalspawn essence is something that is inherent to the character. The tadpole, like the first two examples, are something external which invades the character.
So yeah. That's the point @kanisatha was making, I think. Aside for that, they too are analogous.
I'm a day late on this one, but I'll go on the record as saying I'd bet huge amounts of money that 80% of the people who complained about Siege of Dragonspear couldn't describe what thac0 is an acronym for if someone held a gun to their head.
I said my comments were criticising what we know, and I said my criticism was based on the things said on the article. It's very fair to point out that we need more information, and I said that multiple times. I did not get his insistence on otherwise comparing it to BG2 as if that was trying to prove some point which wasn't relevant.
Just to point out: You're the one who started that comparison, as a point of criticism. You did mention in that same post that we need more information, but you're still criticizing it and comparing it against a finished and well defined product. I'll quote the relevant part for you: Emphasis mine.
Well, I did that partially because someone *has* stated a similarity in an offhand comment just on this information, which would be @byrne20. But there is another reason, which is from what was said in the article, it seems like the tadpole is going to be a big story focus and role playing focus in a similar way to how the Bhaalspawn's taint was. It's not unfair to judge how it compares for the moment.
But making criticisms towards unfinished products based on what we do see and hear of them is fair as long as one acknowledges that the criticisms might be very well addressed as more information comes out. Because if they are, good, if they're not, they stand.
For the moment my opinion is malleable, and I'm just going to wait and see now based on when more information comes to light.
I wonder if it will be possible to be like T'ealc and live with the "symbiote" and its enhancements without going full-on Goa'uld?
Could there be a Tokra-like resistance among the mindflayers where the "Tokra" rebel against the morality of the "Goa'uld" and attempt to live in harmony with their hosts?
Of course, the more this winds up sounding identical to Stargate, maybe even ripped off from it, the more I'll be putting my tongue in my cheek and maybe laughing at material that was meant as serious.
After the last gameplay, it seems you have more options to deal with the tadpole. Namely, Raphael the Cambion, which is like having to choose between the shadow thieves or Bodhi... the evil or the even worse evil haha.
I hope there´s a third way for replayability purposes.
Oh man, there´s still reruns of that series in Scy-fi channel.Good times. Now that you point it out yes, the ceremorphosis thing is very D&D but the way it´s treated looks similar to Stargate.
It wouldn´t be strange. Mass effect races were heavily influenced by the classic "Farscape" series.
Ok, but my point is not about options for getting rid of the tadpole. I was always sure those options would be there. My point is: what benefits do you get from not using the tadpole or getting rid of the tadpole? We know the benefits to using the tadpole. What's the other side?
Oh come on. I'm talking about material benefits within the game system. Not personal satisfaction.