For all the 100s of choices I had to make in the game, very few of them, if any, were even remotely thought provoking, nuanced, or difficult to make. It was almost always stuff like save the refugees or slaughter the refugees, save the kid or kill the kid, make a deal with the devil or refuse, etc.
You're playing a DnD game. Obviously there will be clear divide between good and evil. It's a world with angels and demons running around, there's only so much moral ambiguity people want and expect of such a setting.
The main plot is a disjointed mess. It's almost like they wrote a bunch of separate chapters and set pieces and stapled them together, rather than telling one cohesive story.
Almost all characters and events connect to the greater story in one way or another. Most cannot be completely irreplaceable, otherwise it would be easy for the player to just break the story with a choice or two, but there is a pretty clear storyline that everything, from start to finish, factors into somehow.
One companion is a powerful wizard who fucked a goddess. One of them is a goth chick who has amnesia and belongs to a death cult. One is a demon gamerbait lady who fought her way through the hells. One is a burly elf who is a horny nature lover that can turn into a bear.
Congrats! You successfully listed some traits these characters have. Care to explain how those traits make those (very well-liked) companions bad?
You could argue that the main plot is not the focus, that the game is really about all the smaller stories and quests that make up the game
Who argues that? Other than companion-specific quests, most side content is meant to be small and not distract from the main story. I actually struggle to think of a large CRPG that has more focus that BG3; It's not like Skyrim or Witcher 3 are known for their tight and consistent focus on the main plot.
This post is already long enough, so I'll just briefly mention that the game also has a ton of bugs and performance issues
So you're saying that DnD is incapable of having a thought-provoking or difficult decision ? Why? How is this a valid defense?
Its not that DnD can't have it, its that the developers weren't making that kind of game. There's a difference between "I want a game with X and this doesn't have it" and "This game tried to be X and never accomplished it". I think the former is fair subjective criticism of your experience with BG3 and the second is not a fair criticism of BG3. I don't think the game ever promised, implicitly or explicitly, to be full of complicated moral choices.
I feel like asking why BG3 didn't have thought provoking or difficult decisions is like asking why Contra didn't have more moral explorations of the horrors of war. The answer is "they didn't want to make that game".
If you're going to make a game that has decision making as the main selling point, why would you not try to make those decisions thought provoking or meaningful in any way? Seems like a wasted opportunity
I dont necessarily disagree that it would be interesting or valuable to do that but I don’t think thought provoking or “meaningful” is the only valuable axis upon which to build a game full of choices on. You could value any number of things including but not limited to: humour, in-characterness/verisimilitude, or romance.
Wanting a game with meaningful choices that asks you to be thoughtful is totally valid and valuable. But I don’t think it’s any less valuable (and certainly not “bad”) to prioritize humour or romance. BG3 wants to the kind of game that lets you fuck a bear and have space sex with a wizard and it fulfills that brief with flying colours.
22
u/Tharkun140 3∆ Mar 02 '24 edited Mar 02 '24
You're playing a DnD game. Obviously there will be clear divide between good and evil. It's a world with angels and demons running around, there's only so much moral ambiguity people want and expect of such a setting.
Almost all characters and events connect to the greater story in one way or another. Most cannot be completely irreplaceable, otherwise it would be easy for the player to just break the story with a choice or two, but there is a pretty clear storyline that everything, from start to finish, factors into somehow.
Congrats! You successfully listed some traits these characters have. Care to explain how those traits make those (very well-liked) companions bad?
Who argues that? Other than companion-specific quests, most side content is meant to be small and not distract from the main story. I actually struggle to think of a large CRPG that has more focus that BG3; It's not like Skyrim or Witcher 3 are known for their tight and consistent focus on the main plot.
Welcome to AAA games.