The part of the game that was strangest to me was how everyone all of the sudden wanted to sleep with me. I didn’t feel like my interactions with the companions had reached that point. I also find it strange that no matter the character I make they will all sleep with me. I like that in BG2 Viconia will not engage in a romance with an elf or half elf, because of her own prejudices. She’s her own character. Now don’t get me wrong, the bg2 romances aren’t totally wonderful and if you are the right race (such as human) love talks will come up with the three female romance options, but it didn’t feel so overt. Like I thought I was just being friendly to Gale trying to learn more about him as a character. Wyll was the worst, I never even took him in my party and then all the sudden he wants to ballroom dance with me and get busy. Same with the bear. I would like it more if the companions had actual preferences instead of all being pansexual. I always thought it would be cool if some companions would even pursue relationships between themselves. I think that ties into your claim about them not having a strong moral code as they have no preferences outside of ultimately what the player character wants.
"I like that in BG2 Viconia will not engage in a romance with an elf or half elf, because of her own prejudices. She’s her own character. " Imagine an NPC (and a *Good-aligned* one, to boot) who *openly* rejects your character because they aren't interested in (or even dislike) the PC's race, aren't homosexual (or bisexual) and/or desire someone younger/older/wealthier/religious/et cetera; it would never happen in an L game. Today's gaming milieu is far too sensitive. Anyhow, what you mentioned is part of what steered me away from considering BG3 a true _Baldur's Gate_ experience; BG3 was built to stroke the player's ego whereas _Baldur's Gate_ (and D&D, in general) is about providing you - the player - with opportunities which you must actively pursue while exploring a world _not_ centered around the Player Character. --- "I always thought it would be cool if some companions would even pursue relationships between themselves." Aerie and Haer'dalis!
What bothered me is that the "romance" in this game is basically "hey what's up wanna smash?". That's the OPPOSITE of romantic, unless tinder is your definition of romance.
Old Bioware died after Mass Effect 1 and Dragon Age Origins. After those game came out, nothing was left to reign in Bioware of their personal ideology and they felt the need to preach to the consumer. Dragon Age 2 was the first and most egregious offender of this new Bioware.
As a "woke" and LGBTIQ+ person I actually agree so far with *all* of your views on BG3 and the characters. Particularly the part about the lack of moral depth in contemporary storytelling (atleast in the mainstream, which I consider BG3) is something which rubs me the wrong way. NWN2 Mask of the Betrayer is one of my most favourite CRPGs of all time, the characters would be considered "woke" today, however, they're fantastically written with a lot of moral depth to them.
In what way would the companions of MOTB be considered 'woke' by today's standards? There needs to be a clear definition of what 'woke' is because that gets thrown around far too lightly now.
@@andrewvincent7299 They're pretty non-conforming to traditional gender standards (which is a positive thing in my book btw) in both character design and writing of their personality. Usually that is already enough for people to use the term "woke"; since as you say, it's thrown around very liberally
honestly i feel like your people are saying a character is written good it really means "they support and are injecting my own ideologies and political views" never has a character that your group likes actually been a deep character. pathetic.
@@derharlekin5205I think we are running into an issue where many people are confusing woke with progressive. Simply being gay does not make one woke. The 'why' behind the choices for making someone gay or minority or female, whatever is just as important as 'how' it's implemented. I'm going to disagree that never went their nights, or dragon age origins was woke. It absolutely had progressive viewpoints, but that does not simply make it woke. Full disclosure, I'm as right wing, MAGA as you can get
This issue isn't limited to this game. Why are developers increasingly reluctant to write fantasy stories that aren't connected to modern mores? These inhabitants should not sound as though they were JUST pulled out of a 21st-century Essex pub.
Sir, I know many people in an Essex pub that would heavily resent this. And I live in bloody Camden. Edit: oh wait - where you talking about how horney they are?
Yep, it was all self serving psychological issues, all the quests existed to SERVE their internal struggle not... the other way around which is what life is about.
BG 3 really is a *millenial* game through and through. There are no friendships, no ideals that you can find in others or follow for yourself. All of your dialogue choices are either tepid consent or mean spirited snark, and all of the "romance" options are just American hookup culture. They took some of the most fantastical locals of the Forgotten Realms cosmology and somehow made them banal. I guess I'll just reinstall Planescape: Torment.
The companions (largely) are avatars for popular modern metropolitan morality (of which games development bathes in), meaning that they are ethical relativists that only really stand against one thing : Legacy morality and its standards. Everything else is up for discussion & consideration. Its why they express and talk more like a real-world 2023 metropolitanite, than they do anyone within a largely medieval centered world.
Yeah, my background is in moral philosophy and psychology as a uni lecturer - I try to ignore this more philosophical stuff in the video. But you're definitely right.
And the same is happening with other medias, like movies and shows. They are being written by, for and about this awful generation that doesn't believe in personal development, because in their heads they're already "perfect" and their only "journey" is towards destroying what is "imperfect". That's why we have so many Mary Sue characters.
You really think people i medevial times weren’t banging like crazy? It’s always been a thing. I remember reading that it was so bad in some places that cities like Venice were known in their time for being hubs for sodomy between men. As all the characters in the game are from a major city like Balfour gate it checks out.
You mentioned something that jogged my memory. The whole "collective burden which brings the characters together" was done better with the titular Azure Bonds in "Curse of the Azure Bonds" (specifically, the early AD&D 2e module) than the Illithid tadpoles in BG3.
@@broseidon2519One point in its favor: COTAB felt like genuine fantasy. The Illithid - *especially* when they use psionics instead of magic - bring a degree of science-fiction whenever they appear.
I would like to plumb the depths of long-forgotten ruins, but it appears that almost everyone else has a greater interest in plumbing the depths of my trousers.
I suspect that's also where the script writers/VO actors are from. As a VO actor you basically cannot be in most of this stuff unless you can show up in LA.
@@oldmanbanjo Not really the case here as Larian used a studio based in the UK. The only actors from the US in the game are Matt Mercer and JK Simmons.
I obviously assumed they had some Equity based studio given all the British actors involved in the game. I shouldn't have worded my comment that way - didn't actually mean to insult the voice actors. Though in this circle it feels like every script is getting more and more samey . The difference between London, NYC and LA is getting smaller and smaller because of the internet and direct sessions. I'd be surprised if a lot of the voice direction on this wasn't still established L.A based people. In my limited experience that almost always happens at some point with a big project.
@@NineToFiveGamerUC0079so far looking at all these videos of complaints form the game these dudes just seem like losers. Everything has to be there way or it’s woke or too liberal. Yep these people are losers
Social commentary in and of itself is not problematic, but it _must_ develop organically (i.e., it must emerge from the world naturally...no putting the cart before the horse) and it must be contextually appropriate (i.e., it has to feel quasi-medieval fantasy rather than contemporary, in this case).
I agree with you mostly, the main issue I think is when they disagree with you, they just vanish from the story, it would be better if it could lead to something down the line in the game say they show up in later acts having succeeded or failed in their goals, whatever those may be. It's one main issue I have with the game as a whole, Wyll for example will let you basically kill almost anyone and won't bat an eye at it, but will be sad cause he joined(and assisted) a psychopath.
Spoilers ahead: in act 1 Karlach and Wyll both will attack you if you side with the goblins in attacking the grove. In act 3 you can only get two companions if you follow some pretty specific actions and there's an origin character that has some pretty crazy moral conundrums that will affect your relationship with them. Astarion is in general pretty unhinged but you can bring him from the brink in at least a handful of situations where he's making pretty vile decisions. Certain characters do show up later if you don't recruit them and will even attack you on sight. I feel like your analysis is incomplete. you simply haven't experienced enough of the game to properly make your assumptions. I recommend you play as dark urge for a playthrough but as a lawful good character. it brings up some really interesting situations that I think you'd appreciate.
It's weird to think someone does not like DO2, i loved it, and I'm loving BG3 as well, but have the exact same grievances, I love old school fantasy and scifi, and the writers just captures the feeling in old books, but BG3 could have cars and guns and cell phones, and the dialogue could stay exactly the same, the setting and dialogue does not fit. I'm playing 2 characters in BG3, one dark urge trying to overcome the bad things, and a lone Wizard/Rogue murderhoboing my way through the game, and I must say, there is a kinda peace when you come home to and empty camp on a long rest. on a side note, If Larian had any balls, they would make a DnD game where you are not the protagonist from the start of the game, like Outward of Kenshi, where you find your own path, a truer DnD experience.
I mean there are people out there that hate Dark Souls, which is my favourite game of all time. And I honestly cannot get it - but it just shows how complex game design is and how we all respond differently to what might 'seem' like minor changes.
@hjalmar5995 DOS2 was ok for the most part. But yea. Can't say I really loved it either. The main story especially bored me. Some of the side content was great though.
Yeah, BG3 excels at being mediocre in every single department, except graphics. Amazing visuals with a dull set of characters, and terrible writing, and meh combat.
I don't think they're super woke either, think its mostly for me that they feel more like caricatures than living indepths being. That they don't at least many of them feel authentic enough, feel like making many of them having this all really important stuff going on, is either consciously or subconsciously a disguise to that issue. Feel it stretches most of the NPC characters even Minthara which is probably one the few character I actually like, has it showing through on some the areas where she goes somewhat into the caricature cliche Gen Z writer style. Think the way I can describe it best is I feel like Baldur's gate NPCs had way more personality and authentic behavior coming through their characters, despite the fact so little was added to them compared to say Baldur's gate 2, think it may be a problem with modern writing feeling like its often more imitating than actually feeling believable. Good example I think is Karlach with her bubbly personality, per say is nothing wrong with that. But in the context that she is a barbarian coming from the bloodwar one the most hellish and cruel places imaginable, its a real stretch at least to me not to think that such environment would somewhat have impacted her personality or psyche. I mean how many people with bubbly personality to you actually meet or see in really war torn places and considering blood wars are actually always this harsh and brutal, it to me just does not fit with her to be like that. Had she come and been raised on Faerun and maybe been careless and free spirited bard or something like that it probably felt more authentic, but it to me comes of as unbelievable and sorta humorous so I have a hard time taking it serious. Which then result in me not really caring if its supposed to be a joke anyways, which I feel is generally a problem with many NPC party members, less with the rest the world NPCs as your exchanges with them are not nearly as deep and meaningful most the time, that you get under their skin and really get to know them enough for it to become a problem. Think some it is likely just Larian sorta light humor shining through but I just don't feel like it fit really well for BG franchise that supposed to be more sorta Grimdark, from what I understand both based in lore and previous PC games. So It kinda pulls me out of the immersion leaving you in some sorta of limbo where you fall in and out the immersion of the story and environment.
the characters don't only have weak moral compass, but they have polymorphic sexuality and androgenous phenotypes. They are neither masculine nor feminine...if anything the females have masculine roles, and the males take on female ones. It is fine to have representation with a couple characters, but every character? They are both generic and mailable but also finnicky and unpredictable. The player is scared to make choices because one wrong move in either direction and they are either leaving the party or sleeping with you.
You can turn them down and tell them you are not attracted to them and that's it for the flirting. I turned Gale down and never got flirted with again. I was never scared. Are you also afraid of your shadow?
How can a NPC be unpredictable? I feel like the player dialogue options are more than clear enough to predict the outcome of such conversations, especially once you talk to a certain character a few times perhaps to know them. It's even easier than it is with real life people, I pity someone who faces such struggle.
@@nunya_biznizjust got this game last month I have no idea what all these complaints are about? Yeah Gale and Vampire Diaries tried to seduce me but once you turn them down that’s it. My wife is more jealous of shadow heart and the no nose lady😂😂wait till she meets Karlach her dialogue is hilarious.
BG3 is so BORING! I finally broke down and bought it last month because of the praise it receives, and because Larian didn't do all the microtransactions and overpriced, and all that. I should support devs like that. But the game itself is putting me to sleep! I dislike SO much about this game. I agree that I'm not a big fan of all the characters, because all the females are strong melee aggressive classes, and all the males are weak passive and submissive feminine. And everything seems to lead to sex which I can't stand in games. But more than anything it's that the story feels like it has no direction and focus. It's that the combat is slow, the traversal is slow, but it's the worst camera I've ever experienced in a game, the Looting never ends, there's no real class diversity or depth to the class builds. It's just very shallow and a lot of this is because of 5th edition being such a weak and dumbed down version of d&d. But I just don't like anything about this game! It feels like babies first rpg, and it's on training wheels Edit: I absolutely agree that I did not like divinity original sin part 2, and this feels like it's Divinity original sin part 3
The spam on my last video (over 500 comments!) telling me this wasn't the case was the worst gaslighting I've ever suffered. Other than whenever I talk to my mother....
@@oldmanbanjo Haha ouch! Yeah well, they have made an otherwise great game and I think people flock to protect that fact. Still, the engine they use just makes it too similar to my taste.
According to your logic, fallout 4 is a sequel to skyrim. Same engine, same developer...same game right. They have similarities as to be expected, but fallout 4 is not a sequel to skrim.
@@nunya_bizniz You missed the point. BG3 is not much like a BG game. Interface, intro, char creation, sound, music, gameplay and systems, dialogues, engine offc and so on. If it was not for the game being named BG3, having Mind Flayers, Drows and a giant city named Baldurs Gate I prob would not recognise it as it having anything to do with the prevoius games. DOS swallows it and there is not much left.
@@thomasmrkeby6488 I wouldn't expect a game released in 2023 would feel like a game released in 1998. I wouldn't want it to. Also bg3 is 5e and bg1&2 are 2e. Of course the gameplay and systems are different. Blame your expectations for being weird.
I don't dislike Specaoist Traynor because only a female PC can romance her. I am pissed that a new character got so much attention when i romances Ashley William in 2007 when Mass Effect first came out i romanced Ashley William and exected this reliationship to grow and be a relionship. But Ashley Willam didn't get much screen time in mass effect 3 and she was only in the squad for a very short time and the romace in the and the citadel DLc is none extince.
The PC character in Balder Gate have no depth. It's doesn't feel that the character I created even exist in this world. Gale is from waterdeep. not baldurs gate.. But the character i created is okay is a bard and an enternaier that it. There is nothing than the game saying you are from baulders gate there is no life to the PC.
im late to the party, but only Lae'zel and Astarion are worth any attention, cause they're both the most extremely evil as they are, or the ones with the most room for growth... the rest are an absolute worthless waste of time... Gale and Shadowheart are bring "ok", but Wyll and Karlach are completely worthless and a waste of budget... Screw them, and whoever wrote them, whoever voiced the,. and whoever designed them... headfirst to the unemployment line for being absolutely useless burdens.
I don't know this channel. So I'm going to put this out there that I'm not conservative. If anything, I'm a classic liberal or a libertarian. I generally think the term "woke" is overused these days. While I think you nailed it pretty well, I'd like to add that the characters are missing real charisma. When I was getting into Mass Effect, I only had to watch a few videos to understand why people liked Garrus, Mordin, and Wrex. I've watched dozens of videos on the characters from BG3, and I just don't feel anything from them. Some of their lines are funny, but there isn't any spark. When I ask people why they like them, I always get a generic "they're complex and compelling." But they can't seem to tell me WHY they're complex and compelling. And don't get me started on the Astarion simp wagon. This post would be far too long.
You gpt a good opinion is sad you end it all with, this is my boomer take. Cause they do lack deept in some ways while they are deep in others, at least on character dev on the history.
Shadowheart's narrative disputes that there's a "lack of moral depth". She can become evil, embracing Shar and killing her parents, or you can help her overcome her religious indoctrination. It's not about something "not being her fault". Gale's story is about him owning up to his mistakes. The fact that he has the Weave fragment is his own fault, and he's struggling to make amends. It literally "is" his fault. This game would be empty without the origins characters. Just because they don't fit your preconceived idea of what heroes 'should' look like doesn't mean they were poorly written. Finish the game before you put out another review.
Yeah, I don't agree so much about Gale, but I do agree about Shadowheart, I had a section on her I cut to keep the video under 10 mins (also BIG SPOILERS)...and also because I'm a bit of a simp for her.
Idk, there is a reason why there are like 6 origin characters besides the ones you make for yourself that can be companions, because they all have their own main story which can work as a full protagonist story, and you can literally play it and see more depth of their journey if you feel like there wasn't enough depth in your playthrough. Not all of them have the "hero needs to slay the big dragon" story arc simply because there's like 6 of them and they need to have some sort of variety in their stories and differences in when you play as them. Yes, the player will always be the leader and make the choices in the game even including the other characters, but that doesn't mean that the characters lack moral decision, it's just how the game is played. The characters are given more outcomes to play out depending on how you steer them as well, but you also have options to leave them to their devices and they will do what they actually intend. The way you interact with the world, new information that you find will change their perspective, that may lead them to making different moral decisions, but that's how real life works as well, people are affected by and change their opinions based on their surroundings, or based on who they trust.
So I liked the story of Divnity original sin 2. It was terribly long IMO, I started the game twice and it felt like a chore, but the first ACT, the characters (Lhose) was good enough. the gameloop was fine and while I do not plan playing it ever again I can see why its popular. Baldurs gate 3 started as strong and the combat felt more static I guess? Even without the obvious environment interactions, It felt like I always had so many options and that this nice. I also Liked the dice and a lot of other details. Though most of the options were useless, spells cooldown often to high and the sleep conditions also unclear. Still though I could overcome all that if for the fact I kind of disliked most of the characters I first met and put in my party. Listening to the story of the others I closed the game. It felt to me like they had a templated and copy pasted their basic story on to different personalities, trying to make them to be unlikeable. If they were maybe likeable in some way, they got you in another. Is it me or most of them had a "dark past/secret that they really cannot control or tell you" and then they will and you form friendship. Does anybody has to be the main character? Maybe I missed something but why not make their stories a bit more unique? "Hi my name is frank I came to the big city because my farm was ravaged by goblins, I want to find my sister," would be so much better and grounded.
I'm just trying to bang Shadowheart or Mithranda, everyone els try to bang me.. thats my problem. Honestly the only interesting companion arc for me so far is with Shadowheart and I mostly just skip the dialogs with everyone els.
Other than act 3 being completely broken, it's the characters that bug the hell out of me. The two main fighters are female (laezel and karlach), the thief is gay vampire (sigh), the mage is owned by a female, and on and on. The females are wonderful and are overcoming their flaws and the males are grossly and tragically flawed surrendering to their weaknesses.
I don't agree with the assessment that the companion's problems would not exist without the main character. This is clearly not the case with Gale, Astarion or Karlach, and with Shadowheart and Lae'zel their problem does exist, they're just unaware of it until you come along. Also at least for some of them (Gale and Lae'zel in particular), their story is about a core personality aspect that defines them to some degree, and which is, in fact, a moral one, though it may not be recognized easily as such by many players. None of the companions' stories are redemption stories like Mordin's, but for me that's a plus. The world appears much too modern for your typical fantasy world, that is true. But that is a problem with worldbuilding, not necessarily with characters. And though I don't like the fact that these days, both writers and gamers seem less and less willing or able to project themselves into worlds that are different, this is not necessarily a flaw. BTW, I very much dislike DOS2, but I like BG3. BG3 is much more than a barely disguised DOS3.
I find that the Dark Urge really is the best line. You're a really evil character given the chance to restart, you can give into the urges once more and take your place or you can overcome your urges and redeem yourself.
0:00 you have my attention already please go on the game is so 50 50 for me on one hand its ok on the other hand i cant believe i sat through that crap i cant imagine ever doing it again, replay-ability my buttocks lol
so i played divinity 2 thinking it would be a huge upgrade from bg3 and a lot of things that drove me nuts arent in dv2 so i was like cool this game might be amazing, but then i ran into dv2 issues that i guess were mostly fixed in bg3 but dam the inventory in dv2 is worse somehow than bg3 and i rly dont like that system in either game, i cant stand the tiny boxs, why does everything have to look like an app from a cell phone these days? i cant stand how u can accidently move your skill from your bar and not know it, and then play 6 hours without a skill cuz you didnt know it should be on your bar until you look at your skill book like wtf why did this pop off random stuff like that, these games are frustrating. parts i like, gameplay battle leveling system is meh ok good enough to keep me interested but the parts of the game that get worse as the game goes on like how much of your inventory just becomes a mess just makes me not want to finish the game because what am i gonna do after that, restart and deal with that crap again? i mean ughhhhh lol id rather play something else (also bg3 didnt run well on my toaster laptop, but div2 runs pretty good so im really kinda locked out of bg3 anyway because of how TERRIBLE the lag is i cant even bro)
I had an initial impression like this, but playing origin characters has addressed this somewhat when you get to see the same events but from their perspectives
Hmm. I'm only 5:30 in--so I plan on updating this comment as I continue--but I don't think I agree with the general idea that the *characters in BG3 don't have a strong moral code. Sure, as the PC, you do play an important role in how these characters may modify their moral code in a major way, but that doesn't mean they don't either have one or its entirely replaced. Hell, I would argue for most of the *characters you don't really change their moral code at all, but help them realize their current attachments don't actually align with their belief system. I feel as though the problem is the unequal treatment each character gets. 8:20. So, I do agree with this point: PC is the center of the universe, a literal god all the companions rely on. I'm not a fan of this sort of dynamic either, since it no longer feels the world is its own. POTENTIAL SPOILERS BELOW: *I should point out, the only characters I've played with extensively are Karlach, Shadowheart, Wyll, and Laezel. Shadowheart and Laezel I felt as though so much time was spent on them, especially. And, as a result, I enjoyed their character arcs the most, even if I didn't like their personalities. Both Shadowheart and Laezel have entire sections of the game where you can explore their background culture and by extension learn more about why they make the choices that they do and how they perceive the world.
I enjoyed D:OS1 a lot, I hated D:OS2 and never really finished it. If anything BG3 is more like D:OS1 than D:OS2 but even then the comparison feels like quite the stretch. BG3 takes a bit the look and mechanics from D:OS games, but classes, combat and all this stuff is completely D&D. Your take about the Origin Characters sounds like you hardly interacted with them. Wyll will hunt Karlach, what ever you do. You as the player can influence though, how the hunt will play out. Wyll off Karlach, Karlach offs Wyll, Wyll does not off her an will get punished. Wyll even questions his pact, when he meets Karlach, even more if you prevent him from fulfilling his contract. Astarion tries to get back to his old master and take revenge and is getting hunted by at least one hunter doing so. Shadowheart tries to prove herself to her goddess. La'ezel is kind of like Shadowheart but different circumstances. Not sure how they are different from those examples you mentioned. They do not exist only for the player, but they will not necessarily accomplish their goals without the help of the player, as the environment is pretty harsh. Same as with the Genophage in Mass Effect, the scientist suffers from his guilt, but without the player he would not be able to do anything about it.
Ugh, really hate that woke or political has any mention in this topic. The companions are literally just following Campbell's interpretation of the hero's journey. MAJOR SPOILERS: Their call to action (across all companions and the PC) is the tadpole infection. Then the supernatural aid shows up by way of the Guardian/Emperor. During the crossing of the threshold and road of trials, they tell their backstories and personal motivations. Some or more interesting or well written than the others. And you might find this lazy, but I find poetic, is that some characters motivation are mirrored opposites. Karlach and Gale - both have exploding hearts. Gale's heart will explode and kill many because of his own greed and desire for power. Karlach's heart will explode and kill only her, but because of the greed and desire of power by many (actors like Zariel, soldiers of the nine hells, and Gortash). Same goes with Lae'zel and Shadowheart. Lae'zel rejects her goddess to restore her culture and its people. Shadowheart rejects her goddess to restore her id and ego. All of their 'Abyss' moments are pretty good. Wyll turns into a fucking devil. Karlach has days to live - struggling if she should savor the time she has left or let revenge consume her. Gale is told that his goddess wants him to commit suicide for redemption. Lae'zel learns she has been devout to a false god. Shadowheart learns she has been betrayed by the god she faithfully worshiped. And Astarion... well, I don't think he follows the hero's journey. In fact, I think he is the closest to the type of character that you talked about enjoying in this video. He follows his convictions and morals and sticks with them, with little straying from them or having an arc. He saved himself by becoming a vampire spawn - hates being a slave - and wants to be the master. Dude just is an asshole that wants more and more power. The tadpole gave him means to accelerate that, but I think the dude would have been looking for other means to achieve his goal if the events of BG3 never took place. Unfortunately, it is the atonement of their stories that is just weak - or in some cases incomplete. Because they kinda sweep the atonement and return under the rug and focus back on you, the PC. All roads lead to Baldur's Gate, and you gotta beat the Elder Brain. Some companions are directly affected and have impact with this ending: Gale uses the crown of the Elder Brain to become his goddess' chosen again, or to let greed consume him and persue being a god himself. While others, like Astarion, have their atonement wrapped up in a freakin' sidequest. I guess that I understand that it seems like they all have a mini-arc and go "Well that's that - now about this Elder Brain", but I think this is because of the overwhelming branching and spiderwebbing with the NPC's - Larian absolutely needed to reign it back in to have a manageable conclusion to the game. So by the end of Act 2 - most of the companions have completed their arc and have locked in missions to end the story.
"Larian absolutely needed to reign it back in to have a manageable conclusion to the game." This is a really true. I did a video the algorithm hated on this point on Mark Darrah (Dragon Age's lead dev) on this point...I think there's a point without linearity you cannot have any definition. I'm not sure I agree on the Hero's Journey thing as much for a lot of reasons but I'd need to give that more thought before commenting. The more I read comments like Campbell's the more (and I've studied ancient languages at graduate level) I think he may just be wrong - but that's a story for another time (or an entirely other youtube channel?) But yeah, thanks for the great comment.
God i would have loved this game was div 3 but the combat is not good in comparison with that game, though yeah the characters are crap, I would not enjoy following any of those storylines
Kind of like with 'woke', your use of 'angsty LA millennials' isn't really meaningful to people who aren't already predisposed to the stereotype that you're conjuring, but trying to define it to someone who doesn't hold your perspective on this may prove challenging, I think. Like, what does that even mean?
Il be honest will myself right now.. the Game is amazing 10/10 will win GOTY but got damn MOST of the characters suck 😅 shadowheart, Karlach, ketheric and laezel are incredible but everything/everyone else is trash.. Wyll- boring, cringe and queer Asterion- ott, femine and lame Halisin- not even worth mentioning Gale- not even worth mentioning 🤦🏼♂️ the game is really lacking a geralt of rivia or Arthur Morgan type character that is litterally just badass, mysterious and charismatic
Those type of characters are too masculine for larian and their true target audience. That's why the traditional masculine roles in the party are females and the traditional feminine roles are males.
I don't really see a lack of moral depth in the characters only because they do not have strong moral codes. It is a big point of the game that your player character's actions and dialogue options play a large part in how each NPC's morality can develop, and for some of the NPCs that may very well mean that they become "new people" as the game progresses (Gale, Astarion and Shadowheart might be the best examples). You can develop moral codes and goals depending on your decisions and actions. The idea that each NPC's backstory supposedly boils down to them having a problem and the player character finding out over the course of the game that the problems weren't really their fault doesn't really apply to me either. That's a bit too general for me and seems like a disservice to the nuances of the different NPCs. Whether or not a player likes this game system is something everyone can decide for themselves. I really enjoyed it.
Yeah, I think Banjo here is strawmanning the game a little. He is very biased about how he feels about the game, and in no small part because BG3 did not meet his expectations that he has had built up from playing past games of the series. It's too bad he's not getting the most out of the game, but well, there's always the future to look forward to for that one game that hits the spot. But, he did acknowledge the current trend in storywriting for games. I know for a fact that WoW and Guild Wars 2 had this writing problem; every event and character seems to orbit around the player avatar. They are the commander, the general, the leader of the team, they call all the shots. You're never a simple adventurer who watches a vast world with impossible power unfold and feel dwarfed and humbled by it all. I think Larian/Sven intentionally pushed the game in the direction they now have though, because Sven mentioned that they want to reward the player with their choices. They do want to make the player powerful and impactful on the game world, to satisfy that "main character syndrome". Perhaps this led to the feeling that companions are lacking in agency. As for moral code, I don't think it's necessary for everyone to have a strong one in real life or in gaming, and I think that's a personal opinion Banjo has that he has made into an assumption about what makes characters good. I live in the West now but I didn't have a Western upbringing, and it wasn't really clear to me for a long time that having extremely strong individuality was an important trait. It wasn't relevant in studies or at work to assert yourself and demand certain treatment; you were expected to conform. That's why I'm usually fairly open-minded about weak-willed or morally unstable characters, because in my opinion it's fine if the character can interact with others in interesting ways, and I'm less concerned about if the character has strong enough convictions to stand alone against the world. Banjo mentions that he likes Shadowheart, but I think her character concept actually conflicts with his preference for a strong moral code. She constantly doubts her faith and shows approval for morally good decisions, and yet is very vocal about defending her Sharran worship, which wouldn't necessarily approve of the former two things. You can push her into either extreme of redemption or utter depravity. That's player-privileged agency married to moral flexibility. That conflict is relevant to the story and to the greater light/dark struggle of the Forgotten Realms universe, and that is what makes Shadowheart's story meaningful, not "strong moral code". And if Banjo wants a person with a strong moral code, I don't see why he didn't mention Minthara. She's the exemplar of a firmly unyielding Lawful Evil character. If you save her, she's possibly the most loyal being to you in the Realm. However, her Lawful Evil beliefs wrap around that core of devotion, and the only thing she is committed to is getting power and status for you and herself. You can't fix her, she understands and is happy about the way she is, and yet she is affectionate and means the best for you. There is a tragic moth-to-flame intensity about her that tells you her tyrannical, oppressive ways will lead you both to ruin someday. And as you say, Gale/Astarion/Shadowheart could become new people, people with strong moral codes - thanks to the player's intervention. Gale could reject his hubris and become a true Chosen of Mystra; Astarion could break the cycle of misery and hunger for power and choose to be free; Shadowheart could stand up to all that she knew and learn to hope for the future. Should they not be allowed to have doubts initially? Do they all need to be Large Hams and let their ideologies clash constantly in the team because all of them are tough bastards and they need to find out who has the biggest stiffy? I can't imagine that to be a good time, and it doesn't sound all that exciting to me personally. Saying it's shallow social media problems not only seems like it's a deliberate cheapening of their story, but the negative attribution to such a particular real life example signals a certain psychological resistance to getting immersed in the game. Banjo crosses his arms, leans back in his chair, and adopts an "impress me" attitude. There's no way the game could impress him in any way when all he wants to see are the things that support his confirmation bias in the matter. I also think watching it all happen since Early Access might have made things less impressive, because he knew what could have been versus what it is now, and he could be understandably bitter. Josh Strife Hayes highlighted this problem in a short clip "Why you're not enjoying Baldurs Gate 3": “You engage as little as you need to, and then you wonder why you’re not getting back what you had when you engaged more.”
What do you feel is different about Baldur's Gate? The narrative driven-ness? I mean, the combat is the same just a different RPG ruleset. The inventory and UI is identical. Heck, the tutorial level is more or less identical.
@@oldmanbanjo The combat is not the same, it is well designed and new. The only overlap is creatable surfaces, and that takes a backseat on this game. Ui can be identical if it works, and the UI is better in this game. Even though inventory is still a pain, it's miles better than it was in Divinity. I like the look of the game more. It is just more visually appealing to me and character creation is a blast. I like the D&D ruleset a lot and they have done a great job improving on the system, bringing to life characters that you've always wanted to play. The voice acting is spectacular.
Your just arguing the edges the game plays and feels like a divinity game in its broad essence. You can split hairs that x or Y is different but the core is basically the same even similar to divinity 1. @@poimaster
I'd like to think that the main driving force for at least all the origin charas (and the PC) is to get the tadpole out of your heads. With the exception of one, maybe two charas, i can easily see the others going off doing their own thing ...except they got a tentacly timebomb in their head hahaah. And i think the lack of a "strict moral code" can be justifird by the fact that the Player can use any of them as their own main character, meaning they have to possibly played for both sides of the spectrum. Admittedly, thats reflected by some Origin characters compared to others. And i think you can justify that at least a few have that moral code by Act 1 already haha. But hey, its a vidya game, have whatever reading you want out of this game. You seem to not care, but care juuust enough to make a video (and clearly I care enough to leave a comment hahahaha)
The part of the game that was strangest to me was how everyone all of the sudden wanted to sleep with me. I didn’t feel like my interactions with the companions had reached that point. I also find it strange that no matter the character I make they will all sleep with me. I like that in BG2 Viconia will not engage in a romance with an elf or half elf, because of her own prejudices. She’s her own character.
Now don’t get me wrong, the bg2 romances aren’t totally wonderful and if you are the right race (such as human) love talks will come up with the three female romance options, but it didn’t feel so overt. Like I thought I was just being friendly to Gale trying to learn more about him as a character. Wyll was the worst, I never even took him in my party and then all the sudden he wants to ballroom dance with me and get busy. Same with the bear.
I would like it more if the companions had actual preferences instead of all being pansexual. I always thought it would be cool if some companions would even pursue relationships between themselves.
I think that ties into your claim about them not having a strong moral code as they have no preferences outside of ultimately what the player character wants.
"I like that in BG2 Viconia will not engage in a romance with an elf or half elf, because of her own prejudices. She’s her own character. "
Imagine an NPC (and a *Good-aligned* one, to boot) who *openly* rejects your character because they aren't interested in (or even dislike) the PC's race, aren't homosexual (or bisexual) and/or desire someone younger/older/wealthier/religious/et cetera; it would never happen in an L game. Today's gaming milieu is far too sensitive. Anyhow, what you mentioned is part of what steered me away from considering BG3 a true _Baldur's Gate_ experience; BG3 was built to stroke the player's ego whereas _Baldur's Gate_ (and D&D, in general) is about providing you - the player - with opportunities which you must actively pursue while exploring a world _not_ centered around the Player Character.
---
"I always thought it would be cool if some companions would even pursue relationships between themselves."
Aerie and Haer'dalis!
What bothered me is that the "romance" in this game is basically "hey what's up wanna smash?". That's the OPPOSITE of romantic, unless tinder is your definition of romance.
Literally the first two companions that you meet are racist and hate each other. Are you dumb or something ?
This was my worry for Baldur's Gate 3. I haven't played it at all yet.
Old BioWare was something special.
Old Bioware died after Mass Effect 1 and Dragon Age Origins. After those game came out, nothing was left to reign in Bioware of their personal ideology and they felt the need to preach to the consumer. Dragon Age 2 was the first and most egregious offender of this new Bioware.
Don’t waste your money.
As a "woke" and LGBTIQ+ person I actually agree so far with *all* of your views on BG3 and the characters.
Particularly the part about the lack of moral depth in contemporary storytelling (atleast in the mainstream, which I consider BG3) is something which rubs me the wrong way.
NWN2 Mask of the Betrayer is one of my most favourite CRPGs of all time, the characters would be considered "woke" today, however, they're fantastically written with a lot of moral depth to them.
In what way would the companions of MOTB be considered 'woke' by today's standards? There needs to be a clear definition of what 'woke' is because that gets thrown around far too lightly now.
@@andrewvincent7299 They're pretty non-conforming to traditional gender standards (which is a positive thing in my book btw) in both character design and writing of their personality.
Usually that is already enough for people to use the term "woke"; since as you say, it's thrown around very liberally
honestly i feel like your people are saying a character is written good it really means "they support and are injecting my own ideologies and political views"
never has a character that your group likes actually been a deep character. pathetic.
@@derharlekin5205I think we are running into an issue where many people are confusing woke with progressive. Simply being gay does not make one woke. The 'why' behind the choices for making someone gay or minority or female, whatever is just as important as 'how' it's implemented. I'm going to disagree that never went their nights, or dragon age origins was woke. It absolutely had progressive viewpoints, but that does not simply make it woke.
Full disclosure, I'm as right wing, MAGA as you can get
This issue isn't limited to this game. Why are developers increasingly reluctant to write fantasy stories that aren't connected to modern mores? These inhabitants should not sound as though they were JUST pulled out of a 21st-century Essex pub.
Sir, I know many people in an Essex pub that would heavily resent this. And I live in bloody Camden.
Edit: oh wait - where you talking about how horney they are?
yeah I dont want to be therapist in a game, I want to be a dark lord. DArk lord not some weiird octopus.
Yep, it was all self serving psychological issues, all the quests existed to SERVE their internal struggle not... the other way around which is what life is about.
BG 3 really is a *millenial* game through and through.
There are no friendships, no ideals that you can find in others or follow for yourself. All of your dialogue choices are either tepid consent or mean spirited snark, and all of the "romance" options are just American hookup culture.
They took some of the most fantastical locals of the Forgotten Realms cosmology and somehow made them banal.
I guess I'll just reinstall Planescape: Torment.
The combo of your name + watching my old videos really shows me who my core audience are :)
If you think all the romance options is “American hook up culture” you’ve never hooked up with anyone 😂
The companions (largely) are avatars for popular modern metropolitan morality (of which games development bathes in), meaning that they are ethical relativists that only really stand against one thing : Legacy morality and its standards. Everything else is up for discussion & consideration.
Its why they express and talk more like a real-world 2023 metropolitanite, than they do anyone within a largely medieval centered world.
Yeah, my background is in moral philosophy and psychology as a uni lecturer - I try to ignore this more philosophical stuff in the video. But you're definitely right.
And the same is happening with other medias, like movies and shows. They are being written by, for and about this awful generation that doesn't believe in personal development, because in their heads they're already "perfect" and their only "journey" is towards destroying what is "imperfect". That's why we have so many Mary Sue characters.
You really think people i medevial times weren’t banging like crazy? It’s always been a thing. I remember reading that it was so bad in some places that cities like Venice were known in their time for being hubs for sodomy between men. As all the characters in the game are from a major city like Balfour gate it checks out.
You mentioned something that jogged my memory. The whole "collective burden which brings the characters together" was done better with the titular Azure Bonds in "Curse of the Azure Bonds" (specifically, the early AD&D 2e module) than the Illithid tadpoles in BG3.
@@broseidon2519One point in its favor: COTAB felt like genuine fantasy. The Illithid - *especially* when they use psionics instead of magic - bring a degree of science-fiction whenever they appear.
I would like to plumb the depths of long-forgotten ruins, but it appears that almost everyone else has a greater interest in plumbing the depths of my trousers.
Most of them act like they come from LA or San Francisco. Not the biggest fan of the dialogue...
I suspect that's also where the script writers/VO actors are from. As a VO actor you basically cannot be in most of this stuff unless you can show up in LA.
@@oldmanbanjo Not really the case here as Larian used a studio based in the UK. The only actors from the US in the game are Matt Mercer and JK Simmons.
I obviously assumed they had some Equity based studio given all the British actors involved in the game. I shouldn't have worded my comment that way - didn't actually mean to insult the voice actors. Though in this circle it feels like every script is getting more and more samey . The difference between London, NYC and LA is getting smaller and smaller because of the internet and direct sessions.
I'd be surprised if a lot of the voice direction on this wasn't still established L.A based people. In my limited experience that almost always happens at some point with a big project.
You guys are ridiculous
@@NineToFiveGamerUC0079so far looking at all these videos of complaints form the game these dudes just seem like losers. Everything has to be there way or it’s woke or too liberal. Yep these people are losers
Social commentary in and of itself is not problematic, but it _must_ develop organically (i.e., it must emerge from the world naturally...no putting the cart before the horse) and it must be contextually appropriate (i.e., it has to feel quasi-medieval fantasy rather than contemporary, in this case).
I agree with you mostly, the main issue I think is when they disagree with you, they just vanish from the story, it would be better if it could lead to something down the line in the game say they show up in later acts having succeeded or failed in their goals, whatever those may be. It's one main issue I have with the game as a whole, Wyll for example will let you basically kill almost anyone and won't bat an eye at it, but will be sad cause he joined(and assisted) a psychopath.
Spoilers ahead:
in act 1 Karlach and Wyll both will attack you if you side with the goblins in attacking the grove. In act 3 you can only get two companions if you follow some pretty specific actions and there's an origin character that has some pretty crazy moral conundrums that will affect your relationship with them. Astarion is in general pretty unhinged but you can bring him from the brink in at least a handful of situations where he's making pretty vile decisions. Certain characters do show up later if you don't recruit them and will even attack you on sight.
I feel like your analysis is incomplete. you simply haven't experienced enough of the game to properly make your assumptions. I recommend you play as dark urge for a playthrough but as a lawful good character. it brings up some really interesting situations that I think you'd appreciate.
Mordin Solus didn't invent the genophage he had to reintrodece a modified version since the krogan was overcoming the genophage.
It's weird to think someone does not like DO2, i loved it, and I'm loving BG3 as well, but have the exact same grievances, I love old school fantasy and scifi, and the writers just captures the feeling in old books, but BG3 could have cars and guns and cell phones, and the dialogue could stay exactly the same, the setting and dialogue does not fit. I'm playing 2 characters in BG3, one dark urge trying to overcome the bad things, and a lone Wizard/Rogue murderhoboing my way through the game, and I must say, there is a kinda peace when you come home to and empty camp on a long rest.
on a side note, If Larian had any balls, they would make a DnD game where you are not the protagonist from the start of the game, like Outward of Kenshi, where you find your own path, a truer DnD experience.
I mean there are people out there that hate Dark Souls, which is my favourite game of all time. And I honestly cannot get it - but it just shows how complex game design is and how we all respond differently to what might 'seem' like minor changes.
@hjalmar5995
DOS2 was ok for the most part. But yea. Can't say I really loved it either. The main story especially bored me. Some of the side content was great though.
Yeah, BG3 excels at being mediocre in every single department, except graphics. Amazing visuals with a dull set of characters, and terrible writing, and meh combat.
I agree but I think actually the combat is its strongest point, very well done smooth dnd experience
I don't think they're super woke either, think its mostly for me that they feel more like caricatures than living indepths being. That they don't at least many of them feel authentic enough, feel like making many of them having this all really important stuff going on, is either consciously or subconsciously a disguise to that issue. Feel it stretches most of the NPC characters even Minthara which is probably one the few character I actually like, has it showing through on some the areas where she goes somewhat into the caricature cliche Gen Z writer style.
Think the way I can describe it best is I feel like Baldur's gate NPCs had way more personality and authentic behavior coming through their characters, despite the fact so little was added to them compared to say Baldur's gate 2, think it may be a problem with modern writing feeling like its often more imitating than actually feeling believable.
Good example I think is Karlach with her bubbly personality, per say is nothing wrong with that. But in the context that she is a barbarian coming from the bloodwar one the most hellish and cruel places imaginable, its a real stretch at least to me not to think that such environment would somewhat have impacted her personality or psyche. I mean how many people with bubbly personality to you actually meet or see in really war torn places and considering blood wars are actually always this harsh and brutal, it to me just does not fit with her to be like that.
Had she come and been raised on Faerun and maybe been careless and free spirited bard or something like that it probably felt more authentic, but it to me comes of as unbelievable and sorta humorous so I have a hard time taking it serious. Which then result in me not really caring if its supposed to be a joke anyways, which I feel is generally a problem with many NPC party members, less with the rest the world NPCs as your exchanges with them are not nearly as deep and meaningful most the time, that you get under their skin and really get to know them enough for it to become a problem.
Think some it is likely just Larian sorta light humor shining through but I just don't feel like it fit really well for BG franchise that supposed to be more sorta Grimdark, from what I understand both based in lore and previous PC games. So It kinda pulls me out of the immersion leaving you in some sorta of limbo where you fall in and out the immersion of the story and environment.
the characters don't only have weak moral compass, but they have polymorphic sexuality and androgenous phenotypes. They are neither masculine nor feminine...if anything the females have masculine roles, and the males take on female ones. It is fine to have representation with a couple characters, but every character? They are both generic and mailable but also finnicky and unpredictable. The player is scared to make choices because one wrong move in either direction and they are either leaving the party or sleeping with you.
"The player is scared to make choices..." speak for yourself.
You can turn them down and tell them you are not attracted to them and that's it for the flirting. I turned Gale down and never got flirted with again. I was never scared. Are you also afraid of your shadow?
Sorry, but this comment is way too funny. I've never heard of someone describing this game in such a way and being afraid to play it I guess.
How can a NPC be unpredictable? I feel like the player dialogue options are more than clear enough to predict the outcome of such conversations, especially once you talk to a certain character a few times perhaps to know them. It's even easier than it is with real life people, I pity someone who faces such struggle.
@@nunya_biznizjust got this game last month I have no idea what all these complaints are about? Yeah Gale and Vampire Diaries tried to seduce me but once you turn them down that’s it. My wife is more jealous of shadow heart and the no nose lady😂😂wait till she meets Karlach her dialogue is hilarious.
Reupload - this time with sound! UA-cam just decided to remove it last time. THIS IS CENSORSHIP!
BG3 is so BORING! I finally broke down and bought it last month because of the praise it receives, and because Larian didn't do all the microtransactions and overpriced, and all that. I should support devs like that. But the game itself is putting me to sleep! I dislike SO much about this game.
I agree that I'm not a big fan of all the characters, because all the females are strong melee aggressive classes, and all the males are weak passive and submissive feminine. And everything seems to lead to sex which I can't stand in games. But more than anything it's that the story feels like it has no direction and focus. It's that the combat is slow, the traversal is slow, but it's the worst camera I've ever experienced in a game, the Looting never ends, there's no real class diversity or depth to the class builds. It's just very shallow and a lot of this is because of 5th edition being such a weak and dumbed down version of d&d. But I just don't like anything about this game!
It feels like babies first rpg, and it's on training wheels
Edit: I absolutely agree that I did not like divinity original sin part 2, and this feels like it's Divinity original sin part 3
Thank you, finally someone that sees it what is is. A DOS 3 game. Did not like DOS 2 either and seeing BG3 becoming a DOS game is just sad.
The spam on my last video (over 500 comments!) telling me this wasn't the case was the worst gaslighting I've ever suffered. Other than whenever I talk to my mother....
@@oldmanbanjo Haha ouch! Yeah well, they have made an otherwise great game and I think people flock to protect that fact. Still, the engine they use just makes it too similar to my taste.
According to your logic, fallout 4 is a sequel to skyrim. Same engine, same developer...same game right. They have similarities as to be expected, but fallout 4 is not a sequel to skrim.
@@nunya_bizniz You missed the point. BG3 is not much like a BG game. Interface, intro, char creation, sound, music, gameplay and systems, dialogues, engine offc and so on. If it was not for the game being named BG3, having Mind Flayers, Drows and a giant city named Baldurs Gate I prob would not recognise it as it having anything to do with the prevoius games. DOS swallows it and there is not much left.
@@thomasmrkeby6488 I wouldn't expect a game released in 2023 would feel like a game released in 1998. I wouldn't want it to. Also bg3 is 5e and bg1&2 are 2e. Of course the gameplay and systems are different. Blame your expectations for being weird.
I don't dislike Specaoist Traynor because only a female PC can romance her. I am pissed that a new character got so much attention when i romances Ashley William in 2007 when Mass Effect first came out i romanced Ashley William and exected this reliationship to grow and be a relionship. But Ashley Willam didn't get much screen time in mass effect 3 and she was only in the squad for a very short time and the romace in the and the citadel DLc is none extince.
The PC character in Balder Gate have no depth. It's doesn't feel that the character I created even exist in this world. Gale is from waterdeep. not baldurs gate.. But the character i created is okay is a bard and an enternaier that it. There is nothing than the game saying you are from baulders gate there is no life to the PC.
im late to the party, but only Lae'zel and Astarion are worth any attention, cause they're both the most extremely evil as they are, or the ones with the most room for growth... the rest are an absolute worthless waste of time... Gale and Shadowheart are bring "ok", but Wyll and Karlach are completely worthless and a waste of budget... Screw them, and whoever wrote them, whoever voiced the,. and whoever designed them... headfirst to the unemployment line for being absolutely useless burdens.
I don't know this channel. So I'm going to put this out there that I'm not conservative. If anything, I'm a classic liberal or a libertarian. I generally think the term "woke" is overused these days.
While I think you nailed it pretty well, I'd like to add that the characters are missing real charisma. When I was getting into Mass Effect, I only had to watch a few videos to understand why people liked Garrus, Mordin, and Wrex. I've watched dozens of videos on the characters from BG3, and I just don't feel anything from them. Some of their lines are funny, but there isn't any spark. When I ask people why they like them, I always get a generic "they're complex and compelling." But they can't seem to tell me WHY they're complex and compelling. And don't get me started on the Astarion simp wagon. This post would be far too long.
You gpt a good opinion is sad you end it all with, this is my boomer take. Cause they do lack deept in some ways while they are deep in others, at least on character dev on the history.
lol checking how long you been recording before you mention a particular infamous world leader from the previous century is hilarious
Shadowheart's narrative disputes that there's a "lack of moral depth". She can become evil, embracing Shar and killing her parents, or you can help her overcome her religious indoctrination. It's not about something "not being her fault".
Gale's story is about him owning up to his mistakes. The fact that he has the Weave fragment is his own fault, and he's struggling to make amends. It literally "is" his fault.
This game would be empty without the origins characters. Just because they don't fit your preconceived idea of what heroes 'should' look like doesn't mean they were poorly written. Finish the game before you put out another review.
Yeah, I don't agree so much about Gale, but I do agree about Shadowheart, I had a section on her I cut to keep the video under 10 mins (also BIG SPOILERS)...and also because I'm a bit of a simp for her.
Idk, there is a reason why there are like 6 origin characters besides the ones you make for yourself that can be companions, because they all have their own main story which can work as a full protagonist story, and you can literally play it and see more depth of their journey if you feel like there wasn't enough depth in your playthrough. Not all of them have the "hero needs to slay the big dragon" story arc simply because there's like 6 of them and they need to have some sort of variety in their stories and differences in when you play as them. Yes, the player will always be the leader and make the choices in the game even including the other characters, but that doesn't mean that the characters lack moral decision, it's just how the game is played. The characters are given more outcomes to play out depending on how you steer them as well, but you also have options to leave them to their devices and they will do what they actually intend. The way you interact with the world, new information that you find will change their perspective, that may lead them to making different moral decisions, but that's how real life works as well, people are affected by and change their opinions based on their surroundings, or based on who they trust.
So I liked the story of Divnity original sin 2. It was terribly long IMO, I started the game twice and it felt like a chore, but the first ACT, the characters (Lhose) was good enough. the gameloop was fine and while I do not plan playing it ever again I can see why its popular.
Baldurs gate 3 started as strong and the combat felt more static I guess? Even without the obvious environment interactions, It felt like I always had so many options and that this nice. I also Liked the dice and a lot of other details. Though most of the options were useless, spells cooldown often to high and the sleep conditions also unclear. Still though I could overcome all that if for the fact I kind of disliked most of the characters I first met and put in my party. Listening to the story of the others I closed the game.
It felt to me like they had a templated and copy pasted their basic story on to different personalities, trying to make them to be unlikeable. If they were maybe likeable in some way, they got you in another. Is it me or most of them had a "dark past/secret that they really cannot control or tell you" and then they will and you form friendship. Does anybody has to be the main character? Maybe I missed something but why not make their stories a bit more unique? "Hi my name is frank I came to the big city because my farm was ravaged by goblins, I want to find my sister," would be so much better and grounded.
I'm just trying to bang Shadowheart or Mithranda, everyone els try to bang me.. thats my problem. Honestly the only interesting companion arc for me so far is with Shadowheart and I mostly just skip the dialogs with everyone els.
Other than act 3 being completely broken, it's the characters that bug the hell out of me.
The two main fighters are female (laezel and karlach), the thief is gay vampire (sigh), the mage is owned by a female, and on and on.
The females are wonderful and are overcoming their flaws and the males are grossly and tragically flawed surrendering to their weaknesses.
I don't agree with the assessment that the companion's problems would not exist without the main character. This is clearly not the case with Gale, Astarion or Karlach, and with Shadowheart and Lae'zel their problem does exist, they're just unaware of it until you come along. Also at least for some of them (Gale and Lae'zel in particular), their story is about a core personality aspect that defines them to some degree, and which is, in fact, a moral one, though it may not be recognized easily as such by many players. None of the companions' stories are redemption stories like Mordin's, but for me that's a plus.
The world appears much too modern for your typical fantasy world, that is true. But that is a problem with worldbuilding, not necessarily with characters. And though I don't like the fact that these days, both writers and gamers seem less and less willing or able to project themselves into worlds that are different, this is not necessarily a flaw.
BTW, I very much dislike DOS2, but I like BG3. BG3 is much more than a barely disguised DOS3.
"this is not necessarily a flaw."
It is when the atmosphere of a game is thematically inconsistent with a saga it purports to follow.
Considering they are pretty much origin characters all thought out to be main characters, no, they don't need a main character to survive, lol.
I find that the Dark Urge really is the best line. You're a really evil character given the chance to restart, you can give into the urges once more and take your place or you can overcome your urges and redeem yourself.
I do like the Dark urge thing but that's not really on topic here. Though I may do a Dark Urge replay.
@@oldmanbanjo kinda. I think it answers your moral deoth question. At least one character is genuinely overcoming something and he/she's you
0:00 you have my attention already please go on
the game is so 50 50 for me on one hand its ok on the other hand i cant believe i sat through that crap i cant imagine ever doing it again, replay-ability my buttocks lol
So your character in bg3 is pretty much a muderous therapist?
I honestly think Divinity: Original Sin 2 is better than BG3 in almost every way
so i played divinity 2 thinking it would be a huge upgrade from bg3 and a lot of things that drove me nuts arent in dv2 so i was like cool this game might be amazing, but then i ran into dv2 issues that i guess were mostly fixed in bg3 but dam the inventory in dv2 is worse somehow than bg3 and i rly dont like that system in either game, i cant stand the tiny boxs, why does everything have to look like an app from a cell phone these days? i cant stand how u can accidently move your skill from your bar and not know it, and then play 6 hours without a skill cuz you didnt know it should be on your bar until you look at your skill book like wtf why did this pop off
random stuff like that, these games are frustrating. parts i like, gameplay battle leveling system is meh ok good enough to keep me interested but the parts of the game that get worse as the game goes on like how much of your inventory just becomes a mess just makes me not want to finish the game because what am i gonna do after that, restart and deal with that crap again? i mean ughhhhh lol id rather play something else
(also bg3 didnt run well on my toaster laptop, but div2 runs pretty good so im really kinda locked out of bg3 anyway because of how TERRIBLE the lag is i cant even bro)
Divinity 2 is not good game either.
Now there's sound, but no image.
LOL! Just kidding. 🤣👌
You got me....
I had an initial impression like this, but playing origin characters has addressed this somewhat when you get to see the same events but from their perspectives
lol i just want to start my video by saying the people who mostly agree with me are wrong let me explain why lol
Hmm. I'm only 5:30 in--so I plan on updating this comment as I continue--but I don't think I agree with the general idea that the *characters in BG3 don't have a strong moral code. Sure, as the PC, you do play an important role in how these characters may modify their moral code in a major way, but that doesn't mean they don't either have one or its entirely replaced. Hell, I would argue for most of the *characters you don't really change their moral code at all, but help them realize their current attachments don't actually align with their belief system. I feel as though the problem is the unequal treatment each character gets.
8:20. So, I do agree with this point: PC is the center of the universe, a literal god all the companions rely on. I'm not a fan of this sort of dynamic either, since it no longer feels the world is its own.
POTENTIAL SPOILERS BELOW:
*I should point out, the only characters I've played with extensively are Karlach, Shadowheart, Wyll, and Laezel. Shadowheart and Laezel I felt as though so much time was spent on them, especially. And, as a result, I enjoyed their character arcs the most, even if I didn't like their personalities. Both Shadowheart and Laezel have entire sections of the game where you can explore their background culture and by extension learn more about why they make the choices that they do and how they perceive the world.
I think a lot of people have so much nostalgia that they simply just cannot enjoy anything anymore because they are so attached to the past.
I enjoyed D:OS1 a lot, I hated D:OS2 and never really finished it. If anything BG3 is more like D:OS1 than D:OS2 but even then the comparison feels like quite the stretch. BG3 takes a bit the look and mechanics from D:OS games, but classes, combat and all this stuff is completely D&D.
Your take about the Origin Characters sounds like you hardly interacted with them. Wyll will hunt Karlach, what ever you do. You as the player can influence though, how the hunt will play out. Wyll off Karlach, Karlach offs Wyll, Wyll does not off her an will get punished. Wyll even questions his pact, when he meets Karlach, even more if you prevent him from fulfilling his contract. Astarion tries to get back to his old master and take revenge and is getting hunted by at least one hunter doing so. Shadowheart tries to prove herself to her goddess. La'ezel is kind of like Shadowheart but different circumstances. Not sure how they are different from those examples you mentioned. They do not exist only for the player, but they will not necessarily accomplish their goals without the help of the player, as the environment is pretty harsh. Same as with the Genophage in Mass Effect, the scientist suffers from his guilt, but without the player he would not be able to do anything about it.
Ugh, really hate that woke or political has any mention in this topic. The companions are literally just following Campbell's interpretation of the hero's journey.
MAJOR SPOILERS:
Their call to action (across all companions and the PC) is the tadpole infection. Then the supernatural aid shows up by way of the Guardian/Emperor. During the crossing of the threshold and road of trials, they tell their backstories and personal motivations. Some or more interesting or well written than the others. And you might find this lazy, but I find poetic, is that some characters motivation are mirrored opposites. Karlach and Gale - both have exploding hearts. Gale's heart will explode and kill many because of his own greed and desire for power. Karlach's heart will explode and kill only her, but because of the greed and desire of power by many (actors like Zariel, soldiers of the nine hells, and Gortash). Same goes with Lae'zel and Shadowheart. Lae'zel rejects her goddess to restore her culture and its people. Shadowheart rejects her goddess to restore her id and ego.
All of their 'Abyss' moments are pretty good. Wyll turns into a fucking devil. Karlach has days to live - struggling if she should savor the time she has left or let revenge consume her. Gale is told that his goddess wants him to commit suicide for redemption. Lae'zel learns she has been devout to a false god. Shadowheart learns she has been betrayed by the god she faithfully worshiped.
And Astarion... well, I don't think he follows the hero's journey. In fact, I think he is the closest to the type of character that you talked about enjoying in this video. He follows his convictions and morals and sticks with them, with little straying from them or having an arc. He saved himself by becoming a vampire spawn - hates being a slave - and wants to be the master. Dude just is an asshole that wants more and more power. The tadpole gave him means to accelerate that, but I think the dude would have been looking for other means to achieve his goal if the events of BG3 never took place.
Unfortunately, it is the atonement of their stories that is just weak - or in some cases incomplete. Because they kinda sweep the atonement and return under the rug and focus back on you, the PC. All roads lead to Baldur's Gate, and you gotta beat the Elder Brain. Some companions are directly affected and have impact with this ending: Gale uses the crown of the Elder Brain to become his goddess' chosen again, or to let greed consume him and persue being a god himself. While others, like Astarion, have their atonement wrapped up in a freakin' sidequest.
I guess that I understand that it seems like they all have a mini-arc and go "Well that's that - now about this Elder Brain", but I think this is because of the overwhelming branching and spiderwebbing with the NPC's - Larian absolutely needed to reign it back in to have a manageable conclusion to the game. So by the end of Act 2 - most of the companions have completed their arc and have locked in missions to end the story.
"Larian absolutely needed to reign it back in to have a manageable conclusion to the game." This is a really true. I did a video the algorithm hated on this point on Mark Darrah (Dragon Age's lead dev) on this point...I think there's a point without linearity you cannot have any definition.
I'm not sure I agree on the Hero's Journey thing as much for a lot of reasons but I'd need to give that more thought before commenting. The more I read comments like Campbell's the more (and I've studied ancient languages at graduate level) I think he may just be wrong - but that's a story for another time (or an entirely other youtube channel?) But yeah, thanks for the great comment.
God i would have loved this game was div 3 but the combat is not good in comparison with that game, though yeah the characters are crap, I would not enjoy following any of those storylines
llol man i love this video you got me laughing my ass off
Kind of like with 'woke', your use of 'angsty LA millennials' isn't really meaningful to people who aren't already predisposed to the stereotype that you're conjuring, but trying to define it to someone who doesn't hold your perspective on this may prove challenging, I think. Like, what does that even mean?
Il be honest will myself right now.. the Game is amazing 10/10 will win GOTY but got damn MOST of the characters suck 😅 shadowheart, Karlach, ketheric and laezel are incredible but everything/everyone else is trash..
Wyll- boring, cringe and queer
Asterion- ott, femine and lame
Halisin- not even worth mentioning
Gale- not even worth mentioning
🤦🏼♂️ the game is really lacking a geralt of rivia or Arthur Morgan type character that is litterally just badass, mysterious and charismatic
Those type of characters are too masculine for larian and their true target audience. That's why the traditional masculine roles in the party are females and the traditional feminine roles are males.
@@andrewvincent7299I cannot picture a "Keldorn" or a "Kivan" as a hireable NPC in this game.
How does my boy withers not tick those boxes for you?
So basically If a character doesn’t fit the 80s action movie stereotype of big strong dominant dude he’s gay and sucks ? You sound like a 12 year old.
I don't really see a lack of moral depth in the characters only because they do not have strong moral codes. It is a big point of the game that your player character's actions and dialogue options play a large part in how each NPC's morality can develop, and for some of the NPCs that may very well mean that they become "new people" as the game progresses (Gale, Astarion and Shadowheart might be the best examples). You can develop moral codes and goals depending on your decisions and actions. The idea that each NPC's backstory supposedly boils down to them having a problem and the player character finding out over the course of the game that the problems weren't really their fault doesn't really apply to me either. That's a bit too general for me and seems like a disservice to the nuances of the different NPCs.
Whether or not a player likes this game system is something everyone can decide for themselves. I really enjoyed it.
Yeah, I think Banjo here is strawmanning the game a little. He is very biased about how he feels about the game, and in no small part because BG3 did not meet his expectations that he has had built up from playing past games of the series. It's too bad he's not getting the most out of the game, but well, there's always the future to look forward to for that one game that hits the spot.
But, he did acknowledge the current trend in storywriting for games. I know for a fact that WoW and Guild Wars 2 had this writing problem; every event and character seems to orbit around the player avatar. They are the commander, the general, the leader of the team, they call all the shots. You're never a simple adventurer who watches a vast world with impossible power unfold and feel dwarfed and humbled by it all.
I think Larian/Sven intentionally pushed the game in the direction they now have though, because Sven mentioned that they want to reward the player with their choices. They do want to make the player powerful and impactful on the game world, to satisfy that "main character syndrome". Perhaps this led to the feeling that companions are lacking in agency.
As for moral code, I don't think it's necessary for everyone to have a strong one in real life or in gaming, and I think that's a personal opinion Banjo has that he has made into an assumption about what makes characters good. I live in the West now but I didn't have a Western upbringing, and it wasn't really clear to me for a long time that having extremely strong individuality was an important trait. It wasn't relevant in studies or at work to assert yourself and demand certain treatment; you were expected to conform. That's why I'm usually fairly open-minded about weak-willed or morally unstable characters, because in my opinion it's fine if the character can interact with others in interesting ways, and I'm less concerned about if the character has strong enough convictions to stand alone against the world.
Banjo mentions that he likes Shadowheart, but I think her character concept actually conflicts with his preference for a strong moral code. She constantly doubts her faith and shows approval for morally good decisions, and yet is very vocal about defending her Sharran worship, which wouldn't necessarily approve of the former two things. You can push her into either extreme of redemption or utter depravity. That's player-privileged agency married to moral flexibility. That conflict is relevant to the story and to the greater light/dark struggle of the Forgotten Realms universe, and that is what makes Shadowheart's story meaningful, not "strong moral code".
And if Banjo wants a person with a strong moral code, I don't see why he didn't mention Minthara. She's the exemplar of a firmly unyielding Lawful Evil character. If you save her, she's possibly the most loyal being to you in the Realm. However, her Lawful Evil beliefs wrap around that core of devotion, and the only thing she is committed to is getting power and status for you and herself. You can't fix her, she understands and is happy about the way she is, and yet she is affectionate and means the best for you. There is a tragic moth-to-flame intensity about her that tells you her tyrannical, oppressive ways will lead you both to ruin someday.
And as you say, Gale/Astarion/Shadowheart could become new people, people with strong moral codes - thanks to the player's intervention. Gale could reject his hubris and become a true Chosen of Mystra; Astarion could break the cycle of misery and hunger for power and choose to be free; Shadowheart could stand up to all that she knew and learn to hope for the future. Should they not be allowed to have doubts initially? Do they all need to be Large Hams and let their ideologies clash constantly in the team because all of them are tough bastards and they need to find out who has the biggest stiffy? I can't imagine that to be a good time, and it doesn't sound all that exciting to me personally.
Saying it's shallow social media problems not only seems like it's a deliberate cheapening of their story, but the negative attribution to such a particular real life example signals a certain psychological resistance to getting immersed in the game. Banjo crosses his arms, leans back in his chair, and adopts an "impress me" attitude. There's no way the game could impress him in any way when all he wants to see are the things that support his confirmation bias in the matter. I also think watching it all happen since Early Access might have made things less impressive, because he knew what could have been versus what it is now, and he could be understandably bitter.
Josh Strife Hayes highlighted this problem in a short clip "Why you're not enjoying Baldurs Gate 3": “You engage as little as you need to, and then you wonder why you’re not getting back what you had when you engaged more.”
@@ralk7048 Nah your commetns are wrongg the don't have strong moral codes especially compared with BG2
I hated playing DOS2, I love BG3. I'm sorry I don't see the game as a sequel.
What do you feel is different about Baldur's Gate? The narrative driven-ness? I mean, the combat is the same just a different RPG ruleset. The inventory and UI is identical. Heck, the tutorial level is more or less identical.
@@oldmanbanjo The combat is not the same, it is well designed and new. The only overlap is creatable surfaces, and that takes a backseat on this game. Ui can be identical if it works, and the UI is better in this game. Even though inventory is still a pain, it's miles better than it was in Divinity. I like the look of the game more. It is just more visually appealing to me and character creation is a blast. I like the D&D ruleset a lot and they have done a great job improving on the system, bringing to life characters that you've always wanted to play. The voice acting is spectacular.
Your just arguing the edges the game plays and feels like a divinity game in its broad essence. You can split hairs that x or Y is different but the core is basically the same even similar to divinity 1. @@poimaster
I'd like to think that the main driving force for at least all the origin charas (and the PC) is to get the tadpole out of your heads.
With the exception of one, maybe two charas, i can easily see the others going off doing their own thing ...except they got a tentacly timebomb in their head hahaah.
And i think the lack of a "strict moral code" can be justifird by the fact that the Player can use any of them as their own main character, meaning they have to possibly played for both sides of the spectrum. Admittedly, thats reflected by some Origin characters compared to others. And i think you can justify that at least a few have that moral code by Act 1 already haha.
But hey, its a vidya game, have whatever reading you want out of this game. You seem to not care, but care juuust enough to make a video (and clearly I care enough to leave a comment hahahaha)
Did you ever play the full retail version?
But they are boring because they're woke. They're checkbook characters.
After watching all of your videos on bg3, I can safely say that your arguments against bg3 boil down to an old man angrily shaking his fist
Your comment is really stupid why you even comment if you don't have a good argument
Dafuq is boulders gate? Never heard of it.