Baldur's Gate Baldur's Gate 3 RELEASE THREAD

[Ibn Sina]

What would a neutral path through that quest look like? No matter what happens, either the druids are reclaiming the grove, the Tieflings are taking it over, the two are reaching an agreement under Halsin, or the goblins are occupying it. I guess the neutral option - other than to just leave, which obviously is the best neutral option - would be to defend the grove if you happen to be there while the goblins attack?

Maybe the quest could have been on a timer or something, rather than relying on the player to instigate the attack, but then again we're back to criticising BG3 for not having a degree of reactivity and freedom of choice that no other game has ever accomplished, and disregarding the fact that it already displays more than perhaps any other existing cRPG.

A neutral path would have proper narrative content and same amount of quests as in Tiefling or gobling path. For a neutral path to exist the game would have had to be built around 3 paths. You need to either help the goblins or the tieflings so you can access Moonrise towers or cure ur tadpole with Halsin. A true neutral path would provide a third option with quests that is only available for those who do not side with any faction. I cannot brainstorm such quests but in a very rough sketch I can imagine there being a third character or someone who could guide you to the towers after you preform series of quests for them without siding with the tieflings or goblins.

 

[Ibn Sina]

You forgot the best part. You can ignore the grove completely and move on to act 2. Ignore the goblins, druids and tieflings - just move on. True neutrality. The quests involved aren't even mandatory.

I would say that is pretty damn good.

True neutrality should be a viable path with quests and rewards, not simply skipping content and xp. That is not neutrality that is skipping content and saying it's neutrality.

If you want a game with true neutrality path between factions look at the Witcher 1 .

You want xp for not getting involved? That is pushing it.

As pointed out, there are several ways to "solve" the issue. You guys are being pedantic - you can barely name one single game with so many ways to solve a chapter one main quest. Most games(or all of them) don't allow you to ignore the issue and move on with your business too.

Thats why I said there is no neutral path. Not getting invovled and skipping quests is not a neutral path.

To give an example of Witcher 1, there are two factions that oppose each other. The neutral path is not siding with anyone at late game. You get unique content and characters that only appear on that path as well get to traverse a unique map at the end of the game that is not available in either path.

There is narrative and quests built around neutrality. BG3 has no real neutrality. It is simply skipping content.

 

[Barbarian]

Late game evil choices are actually quite reasonable and seemingly very rewarding... I mean you can literally ally yourself with a green Hag, a Sharran cult and a Bhaal cult. You can also call upon as allies Ethel, Sarevok and Dark Justiciars in your final fight. Doesn't it make sense to ally yourself with such powers if you are evil and self-serving?

If you're moustache twirling kind of evil, sure. But self-serving? In order to get Dark Justiciars help you need to kill a whole bunch of valuable allies, and siding with Sarevok goes squarely into maniacal mass murder for no reason bin. It's a maniacal mass murder for no reason cult after all! Yes, with metagaming knowledge you can weigh strengths of one side over the other in the final fight. But this isn't how the choice is presented to you in the moment. Instead you're offered to do crazy mass murderous things, which, if nothing else, are incredibly risky for your character right then and there. All for a hope (not even promise) of help much later on.

And even with metagaming knowledge, the choice of evil side isn't quite so self beneficial. For example, the main attraction of killing Nightsong is the Shar's spear that can cast darkness every turn and lets you see through it. But you can't really use it, since enemy AI immediately shits the pants whenever you try using darkness defensively. On the other hand you lose Dammon and some of the best items in the game. You also lose Nightsong that can help in a couple of boss fights other than the final one.

I'd say the only clearly evil choice that doesn't feel crazy to take is the one with Astarion. At least you can see the benefits immediately.

To side with the Sharrans dont you need to simply deliver Shadowtits to Viconia?

I assume you are talking about having instead Shadowheart become chosen of Shar and take over as mother superior(which is indeed a whole lot of work).

 

[Barbarian]

"Neutral path" lol, what the hell are you guys on about? 3 factions which have no direct beef or relation to you are in conflict(well the cultists do but you don't know it at that point).

"Neutral path" is to simply walk away, as it is in the game.

Unless off course you suggest something like inviting the evil cultists and the druids for a debate or something.

 

[Itoh]

I walked away from the grove; because the tieflings and druids were boring and Halsin wanted me to complete some dumbass quests to recruit him even after admitting he didn't know much anything to help with the mind flayer problem. If, say, Bioware or Bethesda had made BG3, they'd have shoved the Tieflings back into the story for Act 3, and probably they'd have one of the Tieflings lecture me on what a callous asshole I was for refusing to play butler for a bunch of worthless low-level peasants. Larian did not do this. The tieflings were gone, because Larian realized that I wasn't interested, and had enough confidence in their work that they trusted I'd find other fun stuff to do without their needing to dangle every possible plot thread in front of me like keys before a toddler.

What's most exciting about BG3 is that you can see the DNA of future cRPGs in it. In the same way that Fallout was a revelation in 1997 and still today feels like a blueprint for how to make the cRPGs of the future, even though as a game itself it's very limited and basic in most of its systems and quests. Same for other games that seemed to offer a glimpse into a future that never materialised, like Daggerfall and Deus Ex - I can accept their own countless limitations because they still feel like they're trailblazing new models of what it's possible to do in a cRPG. BG3 similarly feels like it's saying "here's a rough outline of what RPGs might look like ten years from now", obviously we'll have to see if any of that comes to fruition in works from other devs in the coming years.

BG3 made far more money than either of those games, so I'm fairly optimistic. Most of the games that try to copy BG3 will be shit, but its success will give ambitious cRPG devs something to point to when some publisher worries that a complex roleplaying game won't sell.

 

[The Bishop]

To side with the Sharrans dont you need to simply deliver Shadowtits to Viconia?

I assume you are talking about having instead Shadowheart become chosen of Shar and take over as mother superior(which is indeed a whole lot of work).

Obviously I haven't tested all the permutations, but I don't believe I was offered anything at Viconia's place. Can you still recruit Sharrans even if you defy Shar? Doesn't make much sense. But yes, I was talking about taking the evil path with Shadowheart and letting her stab Nightsong.

 

[Barbarian]

On my good playthrough that is what Viconia offered. An alliance against the absolute in exchange for Shadowheart. I refused off course. According to the wiki accepting the offer indeed adds Sharrans as a summon in the final fight.

No idea if this has any interaction with having both saved and recruited Nightsong and Isobel. Apparently not... so you end up allied with both Sharrans and Selunites.

 

[Zed Duke of Banville]

Three paths for the early part of Act I:

Good: Help the tieflings avoid being ejected from the Grove and defend them against the goblinoids
Neutral: Assist the druids in expelling the tieflings and defend the Grove agains the goblinoids
Evil: Help the goblinoids massacre both the tieflings and the druids (not necessarily in that order)

Of course, Larian couldn't be bothered to develop more than a half-baked evil path, much less any neutral path.

Spoiler

Never mind that tieflings should not be of good alignment.

 

[whydoibother]

Three paths for the early part of Act I:

Good: Help the tieflings avoid being ejected from the Grove and defend them against the goblinoids
Neutral: Assist the druids in expelling the tieflings and defend the Grove agains the goblinoids
Evil: Help the goblinoids massacre both the tieflings and the druids (not necessarily in that order)

Of course, Larian couldn't be bothered to develop more than a half-baked evil path, much less any neutral path.

Spoiler

Never mind that tieflings should not be of good alignment.

You are again comparing BG3 to the platonic ideal, instead of comparing it to KOTOR1 and Mass Effect 1, as the conversation before you was.
It objectively factually materially in the real world AKSCHUALLY for real is less black-white choice than those two, and that's a fact, and only wrong gay people disagree (they suck cock).

 

[NaturallyCarnivorousSheep]

Saw a woman in a prestigious supermarket chain called Biedronka wearing a shirt with a caption "i can fix him" and an image of astarion underneath

 

[Reyvik]

Saw a woman in a prestigious supermarket chain called Biedronka wearing a shirt with a caption "i can fix him" and an image of astarion underneath

Sounds like alternatywka

 

[NaturallyCarnivorousSheep]

Saw a woman in a prestigious supermarket chain called Biedronka wearing a shirt with a caption "i can fix him" and an image of astarion underneath

Sounds like alternatywka

Fat nerd świnia.

 

[Reyvik]

Thats why I said there is no neutral path. Not getting invovled and skipping quests is not a neutral path.

To give an example of Witcher 1, there are two factions that oppose each other. The neutral path is not siding with anyone at late game. You get unique content and characters that only appear on that path as well get to traverse a unique map at the end of the game that is not available in either path.

There is narrative and quests built around neutrality. BG3 has no real neutrality. It is simply skipping content.

Existence of neutral path in first Witcher game is tied to overarching motive, both in books and games, about monster hunters innate neutrality stemming from their so called codex (whish doesn't exist btw). I can't imagine adding neutral path in BG3, which is obviously heroic fantasy with its own approach to moral dillemas. In BG3 ignoring tieflings plight is obviously evil choice simply because cultists are portrayed as typical evil faction. In witcher both scoiatel and knights of the flaming rose have ambitions and goals tied to their ideologies that might be perceived as subjectively bad or good. In BG3 no such issues occur

 

[Infinitron]

Tasked with quite literally imagining magic, watch episode 3 of General Mocappery to see how Choreographer Tamara Arruti, brought your favourite spell casts to life.

 

[dukeofwoodberry]

Three paths for the early part of Act I:

Good: Help the tieflings avoid being ejected from the Grove and defend them against the goblinoids
Neutral: Assist the druids in expelling the tieflings and defend the Grove agains the goblinoids
Evil: Help the goblinoids massacre both the tieflings and the druids (not necessarily in that order)

Of course, Larian couldn't be bothered to develop more than a half-baked evil path, much less any neutral path.

Spoiler

Never mind that tieflings should not be of good alignment.

You are again comparing BG3 to the platonic ideal, instead of comparing it to KOTOR1 and Mass Effect 1, as the conversation before you was.
It objectively factually materially in the real world AKSCHUALLY for real is less black-white choice than those two, and that's a fact, and only wrong gay people disagree (they suck cock).

This game is very overrated. Sorry faggot

 

[Jermu]

asking choreographer instead of wizard how to cast spells
retarded company

 

[dukeofwoodberry]

Isn't it funny that the two sort of badass party members are female (Laezel and Minthara) and the men are effeminate faggots?

 

[Cael]

Isn't it funny that the two sort of badass party members are female (Laezel and Minthara) and the men are effeminate faggots?

Funny or expected in current year?

 

[whydoibother]

Isn't it funny that the two sort of badass party members are female (Laezel and Minthara) and the men are effeminate faggots?

Isn't it funny how much of a triggered little special snowflake you are being right now?

 

[Sweeper]

Tasked with quite literally imagining magic, watch episode 3 of General Mocappery to see how Choreographer Tamara Arruti, brought your favourite spell casts to life.

Would btw.

 

[Clockwork Knight]

The people arguing in favor of the writing of BG3 fail to address the fact this game's writing and story are mostly boring with some cringe mixed in.

This generic subjective criticism could apply to literally all the games you listed as examples of "good" writing. I was far more bored with Mass Effect, KOTOR 1, and The Witcher than I ever was with BG3, and these days I'd probably cringe harder playing Fo2.

I don't see anyone arguing that BG3 is some kind of revelation in writing, but it's a basic heroic fantasy adventure story that mostly sustains itself until the third act, when it falls apart, and has some superficially funny and engaging characters (which is more than BioWare have ever managed). For me it's basically on par with BG1 and BG2 in terms of writing, except with significantly more interesting party members and other NPCs. I also thought the hook of having the mindflayer deceive you in dreams was a decent idea even if, like most things, it fizzles in Act 3.

I think the reason you're getting this reaction is because of the games you listed as alternatives - if you'd said "I personally found BG3 boring and think it could have been better written" (or even "BG3's writing is mostly shit") then everyone would probably agree, but if you come in saying "BG3 cannot compare to the objective classics like KOTOR and The Witcher and Mass Effect!" then everyone's going to say "but hang on, they're shit". All those games got torn a new asshole on this site when they were first released.

You either leave the codex or you post long enough to see the banal-shit-boring become new classics.

(Marilyn Manson - This is The New Shit starts playing in the background)

 

[Lemming42]

I'm giving it about six years until we get a wave of new users complaining that the cRPGs of 2030 can't match up to the old classics like Baldur's Gate 3, Pathfinder: Wrath of the Righteous, and Pillars of Eternity Deadfire.

 

[Barbarian]

I'm giving it about six years until we get a wave of new users complaining that the cRPGs of 2030 can't match up to the old classics like Baldur's Gate 3, Pathfinder: Wrath of the Righteous, and Pillars of Eternity Deadfire.

Better yet, a new wave of users reminiscing about the good old days where games like BG3 weren't so woke.

"In BG3 squid and bear zoophilia was optional content! In Baldur's Gate 6 the main character is raped by a wereboar during the introduction!"

Literally. I already mentioned how people thought the Viconia romance was degenerate in BG2.

 

[Clockwork Knight]

Remember Wyll? Remember Gale? They were just normal guys trying to save Faerun from some evil gods. Heckin' wholesome family fun, I remember laughing with my dad when the squirrel drops the nut. Why can't we have companions like that anymore? Why do we have half-gnome presbyterian artificers and warforged barbarian monks? Everything has to be weird nowadays. Swen...take us back home...

 

[dukeofwoodberry]

Isn't it funny that the two sort of badass party members are female (Laezel and Minthara) and the men are effeminate faggots?

Isn't it funny how much of a triggered little special snowflake you are being right now?

I'm not one of these anti woke free speech libertarian types. I would love it if fag and tranny content was banned and made illegal. I'm a fascist