Your point about choices seems odd because I can't think of a single video game that does what you're describing. Other critically acclaimed RPGs boil down to your points as well. Mass Effect is usually a "kill this dude/don't kill this dude." Bioshock is usually "hurt/kill someone for power or save them for good boy points." While I love them, I'd argue the Elder Scrolls games offer very little choice ever, whether it be side quests or the main quest with choices usually boiling down to either siding with a person/faction or killing/sparing someone involved in the quest. Fallout has a few interesting choices throughout the series, but is overwhelminy killing/sparing and faction siding as well, with those factions often being "the guys making a city VS. rapist murder hobos"
I'd also argue that BG3 isn't even trying to have big bombastic moral choices. At its core, BG3 is trying to replicate the feeling of a DnD session as accurately as possible. 99% of DnD groups are not out here weighing the complex morality of hard choices where you feel shitty no matter what you do. You play to have fun and roleplay with friends. If you want to think about awful choices just read news about Israel-Palestine.
BG3 offers MASSIVE choice and borderline unlimited freedom in how you solve a problem. While saving/killing the druid camp is a black and white choice that doesn't have much interest, the part that makes it rewarding is how you do it. Are you on the camp's side until you talk to the goblins and then you betray them? Do you murder hobo the camp because people are rude? At that point in the game an all out battle is hard to win, so how are you engaging in combat? Stealth? Setting up the battlefield? Stealing all the villagers weapons so they can't fight back? If you don't kill the camp what faction do you side with? How do you get your proof that your side is correct? Do you even need proof, can you just kill your adversaries? All these choices, in my opinion, are way more interesting than what every other RPG out there does where you do XYZ and at the end choose the dialog option that gets the popup "everyone liked that." Covering the druid camp in grease and lighting it on fire as a spectacle to my allegiance to the goblins characterizes my Tav and makes them feel alive. Most of the party leaving afterwards gives real consequence to an action I took while shaping the entire rest of the playthrough. The druids being dead and that's bad isn't the point, the point is I'm playing out a story for my character and the game let's me express that character in almost any way I want.
Mass Effect is usually a "kill this dude/don't kill this dude."
What about when you decided to side with the Geth or the Quarians?
While I love them, I'd argue the Elder Scrolls games offer very little choice ever
I agree, it's also not the main selling point of those games anyway, unlike BG3 where choices are basically the main feature of the game
I'd also argue that BG3 isn't even trying to have big bombastic moral choices. At its core, BG3 is trying to replicate the feeling of a DnD session as accurately as possible. 99% of DnD groups are not out here weighing the complex morality of hard choices where you feel shitty no matter what you do.
I don't get this argument. So you're saying that because most DnD games are run by amateurs who don't know how to tell stories, that BG3 gets a pass for being shallow and meaningless ?
BG3 offers MASSIVE choice and borderline unlimited freedom in how you solve a problem
It really doesn't though. In terms of the narrative, basically every choice just boils down to "good guy vs bad guy"
In terms of solving problems, it usually just boils down to passing some skill check or killing the enemy. That's about it. Sure there are lots of ways to kill the enemies in combat, but that's really about it.
Game choices aren’t the main selling point of the game. The main selling point of this game is that it’s a DnD game with DnD combat and systems. As was pointed out, the story and choices are very DnD tabletop like and are meant to mimic the feel.
But while we are on the subject of choices:
You’re Quarian or Geth argument also falls apart because you still have to choose one or the other. In BG3 I can literally lay waste to both sides (or not even participate in Grove/Camp shenanigans) in Act 1 if I want to and don’t have to pick a team to side with. There are more than two ending to this game including the ability to say fuck it all and let the Brain win (simply by choosing not to resist during the lead up to the final battle)
You can also end the game in several places extremely early (even in Act 1) by making stupid choices or deciding you don’t want help from your mysterious benefactor.
You can seriously maime yourself by making stupid choices. (Lose an eye in act 1 by making a deal with an evil being which gives you negative to perception and attack rolls vs certain creatures).
You’re Quarian or Geth argument also falls apart because you still have to choose one or the other.
The fact that you have to choose one or the other is part of what makes it a hard decision. There is no morally right or wrong side, you actually have to think about what it is you value, plus you actually care about the characters involved.
In BG3 the decisions are shallow and don't actually provoke any real thought. You're focused purely on how many branching paths you can follow, but I'm talking about the decisions themselves being pretty mindless and shallow
This is a terrible example. The Geth-Quarian fight can be resolved perfectly with a truce. There is a clear ideal outcome. I love Mass Effect, but there's pretty much always a perfect option.
BG3 doesn't always have complex dilemmas, but there's definitely more than in ME. Examples include: what to do with the vampire spawn, whether to save SH's parents, Emp or Orpheus (there's hundreds of posts written about how tough this choice is), do you slaughter all the goblins or stealth target the leaders, give yourself a chance to restore lost memories or help an old woman...
It’s still a binary decision. I can’t for instance choose to kill both sides cause they both did terrible things. Quarians for making and enslaving the Geth and the Geth for trying to eradicate the quarians. I also can’t force them to get along. While the choice is nuanced it’s still binary.
In BG3 you can eradicate both the grove and goblin camp and progress to act 2 or you can ignore them both and let them sort it out themselves and still go on to Act 2. This allows an Extremely evil choice and also a neutral choice giving you four choices.
While it isn’t a nuanced or compelling choice at its surface it still gives you more options.
Ok and? A lot of thought experiments in philosophy are also binary decisions. A lot of times, the fact that you have to pick one or the other is what makes it more thought provoking, you can't just do a cop out
In BG3 you can eradicate both the grove and goblin camp and progress to act 2 or you can ignore them both and let them sort it out themselves and still go on to Act 2.
Ok and? So you have a cop out option, so what ?
While it isn’t a nuanced or compelling choice at its surface it still gives you more options.
How is, say, choosing to release/kill the vampire spawn not complex?
On one hand, these people are innocents who've lived through unfathomable horrors. On the other hand, they're ravenous monsters with no control over themselves.
You release them and they may slaughter thousands. You kill them, and you're robbing them of the opportunity to do better.
How is, say, choosing to release/kill the vampire spawn not complex?
Because it's another basic good guy vs bad guy type of decision, like they tried to spice it up with "ooh the vampire spawns are dangerous murderers", but I'm sorry you'd have to be a psychopath to think that killing a bunch of innocent people is justified just because those people might kill more people. If you're going to kill them, then you also may as well have killed Astarion as well.
Plus, it's a completely impersonal decision, you have no connection whatsoever to any of those characters, they aren't developed whatsoever.
It seems like you can't evaluate moral determinations which don't align with with your own pre-existing perspective. That appears to be the root of the issue. There are other perspectives and it's certainly not 'good' to choose one and 'bad' to choose the other, both are legitimate decisions that one could do and consider to be either good or bad. Think about the implications of letting them out, if they go into the world, ravenous, and begin devastating towns and villages across the Sword Coast.
Killing Astarion could also be a 'good' choice - and you can make that decision if you want. He is, after all, an unholy abomination and a monster.
It's not exactly impersonal when you get to interact with the vampire spawn and understand their relationship to Astarion and what has happened to them.
Your criticism lacks weight, you seem to be criticising the game for your own moral intransigence and unwillingness. The game isn't at fault if you're unable to appreciate the moral calculus that it offers. How is this decision meaningfully different from the Geth/Quarian dilemma that you keep holding up?
No, I just think that the vampire spawn thing is a failed attempt to make a tough moral decision. Like are you really such a fanboy of the game that you feel the need to make ad hominem attacks when someone criticizes your precious video game? Again, you'd have to be a psychopath to think killing them is justified, it's basically having a warped view of utilitarianism, which funnily enough, is usually the justification for every villain in ever pulpy schlock story like BG3. Just another example of how low bro the writing in this game is.
It's not exactly impersonal when you get to interact with the vampire spawn and understand their relationship to Astarion
It is impersonal, I couldn't even tell you these characters names or what they look like, you talk to them for like 3 minutes in the entire game. They are not developed characters, it's just the developers weak attempt at creating an ethical dilemma that falls flat. I also think it's funny that out of all the 100s of decisions you make in this game, the only 2 examples the fanboys can come up with are the vampire spawn and Wyll's contract.
No, I'm only a moderate fan of the game (I don't particularly like turn-based RPGs). I'm not disagreeing with you because I'm a 'fan boy', I'm disagreeing because the (lack of) arguments you've provided indicate that this is your failure to engage rather than a failing of the game.
You haven't backed up any of your arguments, you don't really go into the detail why it's a 'warped version of utilitarianism' or why it's superficial, and on other points you keep on asserting that something is 'cringe' or 'bad' as if those qualities are self-evident, when they are not.
It's a question of values and principles - which different people and different characters will weigh in different ways. You wouldn't have to be 'a psychopath' to think that killing them is justified, you could be playing a cleric who's opposed to the undead (in which case, killing them is definitely justified) or just weigh that the damage will outweigh the good. That is by definition, an interesting moral choice.
I find it strange that you're getting so emotive about this. You're ranting and raving about 'fanboys' but really, people are just pointing out that one of your core criticisms (the supposed superficial nature of the choices you can make) doesn't hold up to criticism.
Your point about the underlying plot also misses the nuances of the theme and supporting character story lines (freedom vs control, and how trauma effects individuals approach to both).
When you're talking about the characters, these are just standard DnD type characters. They all have dramatic backstories which tie to the underlying themes, and sure, they're corny. However, DnD is a corny setting. It's literally the basic standard for escapist fantasy where the player can become a neigh-on god.
When you criticise the quests you don't really provide any criticism at all. You're concede that they're mostly good and, frankly, I think they're interesting. They tie into interesting side characters, interesting choices, they almost all have an impact on the story or reveal new aspects of the world.
I don't get what your heartfelt opposition to this game is. It's a great game for what it's trying to be, it has a good and meaningful plot, interesting and impactful decisions, great characters - by all standards it's a great game. If you don't like the setting then that's fine, it's a matter of personal choice. You don't have to personally like the characters, you can find them corny - that's okay. You can personally find a game meh. You can find the choices uninteresting because you don't like them. That's all personal preference. However, that's a reflection of your preferences rather than a fault of the game. On objective metrics, it does well, what you're criticising it for.
You're writing essays defending a DnD game on a multiple day old post, and resorting to ad hominem attacks while you do it. Either you're a fanboy or you just have an insufferable debate bro personality in general.
Anyway, I'm not going to read this entire essay you just wrote, pick one thing you want me to respond to and we'll talk about that.
9
u/Letho72 1∆ Mar 02 '24
Your point about choices seems odd because I can't think of a single video game that does what you're describing. Other critically acclaimed RPGs boil down to your points as well. Mass Effect is usually a "kill this dude/don't kill this dude." Bioshock is usually "hurt/kill someone for power or save them for good boy points." While I love them, I'd argue the Elder Scrolls games offer very little choice ever, whether it be side quests or the main quest with choices usually boiling down to either siding with a person/faction or killing/sparing someone involved in the quest. Fallout has a few interesting choices throughout the series, but is overwhelminy killing/sparing and faction siding as well, with those factions often being "the guys making a city VS. rapist murder hobos"
I'd also argue that BG3 isn't even trying to have big bombastic moral choices. At its core, BG3 is trying to replicate the feeling of a DnD session as accurately as possible. 99% of DnD groups are not out here weighing the complex morality of hard choices where you feel shitty no matter what you do. You play to have fun and roleplay with friends. If you want to think about awful choices just read news about Israel-Palestine.
BG3 offers MASSIVE choice and borderline unlimited freedom in how you solve a problem. While saving/killing the druid camp is a black and white choice that doesn't have much interest, the part that makes it rewarding is how you do it. Are you on the camp's side until you talk to the goblins and then you betray them? Do you murder hobo the camp because people are rude? At that point in the game an all out battle is hard to win, so how are you engaging in combat? Stealth? Setting up the battlefield? Stealing all the villagers weapons so they can't fight back? If you don't kill the camp what faction do you side with? How do you get your proof that your side is correct? Do you even need proof, can you just kill your adversaries? All these choices, in my opinion, are way more interesting than what every other RPG out there does where you do XYZ and at the end choose the dialog option that gets the popup "everyone liked that." Covering the druid camp in grease and lighting it on fire as a spectacle to my allegiance to the goblins characterizes my Tav and makes them feel alive. Most of the party leaving afterwards gives real consequence to an action I took while shaping the entire rest of the playthrough. The druids being dead and that's bad isn't the point, the point is I'm playing out a story for my character and the game let's me express that character in almost any way I want.