Rhobar121
Scholar
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2022
- Messages
- 1,254
Story-wise, it makes sense.I have some major objections to Act 2, as I'm nearing its ending.also heard act 2 is supossedly a drop off but it's as good as act 1 so far just tonally different(which is a good thing)
I think it's a mistake that its main storyline is so heavily scripted as it is. It creates problems for replayability. On subsequent playthroughs the player will have some important reveals already spoiled for him.
Connected to the afirementioned problem, the map design is much more linear than it was in Act 1.
Act 2 very much feels like a game within the game BG3. The link between the region's problems and the main plot, with the party's problem, is very loosely established. It's like everyone at one point or another says "Oh you know what, the answer to my personal issues just happens to lie in Moonrise Towers. "Watta coincidence, innit?"
Somehow you get Moonrise Towers as the single point of abduction of:
- A Gnome elder
- A Duke of Baldur's Gate
- Unknown number of Tiefling refugees
- god knows what else, I forget.
My overall impression is that a bunch of sidequests were produced, and later had to somehow be connected to Moonrise Towers in order to give motivation to the party to go there. But the DMs overdid it. I don't need 5 quests, including one companion quest pointing to the same location.
Lastly, I'm noting the tendency of playing with a custom character essentially spoiling the stories of party members. If I've done someone's personal quest, wouldn't I know everything about this character if I later play as him/her? Was it a mistake making NPC playable as main character?
This is the main headquarters that contains the source of tadpoles that they use to infect prisoners.
Where else would they like to bring all the captives?
Where else would they like to bring all the captives?