BG3 Let's discuss the ending of BG3 (massive spoiler, obviously)

[Vaelith]

I digress, but I can accept that you think you were being fair. In my opinion, with better moderation, I wouldn't need to have 14 ignored users, and I would be much nicer myself (I used to be, some people might remember). People would in general be nicer towards each other and respectful of each other's opinions, and there would be more of them participating in discussions, and in the forums in general. Or maybe not, who knows. There's no need to derail the thread further, regardless, at least from my part.

 

[bjon045]

because they're the only shit that gives this semi-dead site some semblance of activity, that's fine

Didn't someone else who used to post here use almost the exact same statements before they got banned? I could be wrong but I think the name started with a N. I think next we will be getting called old men with irrelevant old fashioned tastes?

Anyway to get back on track:

Okay, so BG3 can't be BG3 because the setting of the city is wrong. But its okay for BG2 to be BG2 because it isn't about the setting, but the story. Granted BG3 isn't a direct continuation of the same story but that would be rather pointless IMO. I don't fully understand obsessing over so many details on an ancient game instead of just playing and having fun with a new game but I know the brain can have a hard time ignoring things once it locks onto something. I have my OCD but its in different areas thankfully. I find incongruities in many game sequels all the time. Things change over time in the life of games and devs want to be free to write their own vision, or change things from the past.

The one point I do agree on is the name suggestion by Red, calling it BG Absolute would have maybe removed expectations for people.

I would agree on that as well, except maybe something a bit more creative than just Absolute.

I also disagree with Maylander on why it should not bear the name BG3 despite being the best game I have played in the last few years. When I arrived in act 3 I felt like was actually in Baldurs Gate despite a few things being in wrong place/missing. Why I think it should be called BG: Absolute is because the style is completely different than 2&3. It's got none of the simple exploration/map clearing of the originals. It focuses on reactivity and restricts player freedom behind a phlethora of skills and stat checks (there were 7 stat checks total across both BG1/2). The vast number of cinematics (which I enjoyed) are almost non-existent in the originals. Most importantly it has turn based combat instead of real time. It's an amazing game but completely different.

 

[Redglyph]

Another OOT post from me (sorry @bjon045, I was typing it when you posted).

I digress, but I can accept that you think you were being fair. In my opinion, with better moderation, I wouldn't need to have 14 ignored users, and I would be much nicer myself (I used to be, some people might remember).

From where I sit, it does look like a vicious circle. You must know those things better than me, but I don't see the situation improving if you keep the current attitude, unless there's some massive moderation to keep both sides in check. Thankfully (or unfortunately in this case), this isn't the current style of the Watch.

I'm bad at diplomacy, but I've heard that the good reaction was to calmly explain what is irritating and discuss about it, to give a chance to both parties to be a little less subjective.

If we look at this thread: I don't think that Maylander ever said anything bad to you and he was an example of a composed poster with everyone, yet you suddenly took offence and wrote this:

you're the one who seems upset and is spamming wall of text after wall of text, not me

I'm not quoting the beginning of the paragraph, which could easily be considered as patronizing, unless it came from a friend or at least someone he's known for a while. That also depends on the culture; I suppose it could be acceptable in some countries.

I can't speak for others, but for me it would be a problem if someone told me this, especially if there has been some tension before. Then there are several posts that look like general criticism addressed to the general audience (no quotes, no mentions), which I believe is what irks people most in your posts - again, I may be wrong, but others said it explicitly too.

I'm not saying I'm not making the same mistakes; I'm irrelevant here and only trying to point out what I see as being part of the problem. Ignoring so many people may also make you miss the feedback that would allow the situation to improve.

PS: If I'm in the list too, it's all very pointless, but at least I've tried (for the last time).

 

[bjon045]

A lot of people on social media (BG3 Reddit and Steam forums) have also said they would like a geniune good ending where everything turns out for the best for all your characters/orpheus without a parasite etc. After completing the game a couple of times I have to agree as well. There should also be a reward for players who never use the tadpoles vs going full tadpole - currently it doesn't make a difference.

In my first playthrough as a goodie two shoes sorceror I never touched the things despite all prodding by the voices etc. Second playthrough I used them all. Not sure if this changed in the latest patches?

 

[bkrueger]

A lot of people on social media (BG3 Reddit and Steam forums) have also said they would like a geniune good ending where everything turns out for the best for all your characters/orpheus without a parasite etc. After completing the game a couple of times I have to agree as well.

Isn't it racist against Illithids to call becoming a mind flayer a bad thing? jk

There should also be a reward for players who never use the tadpoles vs going full tadpole - currently it doesn't make a difference.

In my first playthrough as a goodie two shoes sorceror I never touched the things despite all prodding by the voices etc. Second playthrough I used them all. Not sure if this changed in the latest patches?

From a game-balance view I agree (however, the only tadpole ability I ever found useful was that flying ability you get at some point and that may not even depend on using tadpoles). From a story point of view I don't think that it is a necessary conclusion to ask for a downside of using tadpoles. Using the tadpole properties isn't a "good" or "bad" thing. You are infected anyway and as long as you can control your condition, it is simply clever to use what you can. You don't get nearer to some kind of "dark side" by using the tadpoles.

 

[Redglyph]

I don't think Larian would like to encourage not using something in the game. Maybe it could have granted an achievement, but they didn't try to make relevant achievements for BG3.

I wonder what happens to the characters who accept to do the hybrid Illithid transformation. Should they be left in that state in the ending (which I suppose is the case now)?

 

[Vaelith]

In the two full playthroughs I did, I kept my character from activating or using any tadpole powers. I don't know if it would count as evil as dnd 5E is quite more open and ambiguous when it comes to alignment, but it feels morally doubious, and your good companions seem sttrongly against using them, while the less good ones are in general more receptive. (Lae'zel aside because of her own racial enmity)

 

[wolfgrimdark]

I also avoided using the tadpoles. I felt it fed and strengthened them and I know if you fully embraced using them some stuff could happen. So, for me, not using them was a test of will power and not succumbing to the evil mind flayer and absolute influence.

 

[bkrueger]

I also avoided using the tadpoles. I felt it fed and strengthened them and I know if you fully embraced using them some stuff could happen. So, for me, not using them was a test of will power and not succumbing to the evil mind flayer and absolute influence.

That is interesting. I did exactly the opposite, but for the same reason: Being able to swallow those tadpoles, but controlling them and their powers instead of being controlled by them, was a proof for me, that my will is stronger than theirs and that they have to succumb to my influence.

 

[Morrandir]

Can someone write a plugin for XenForo (based on GPT or something) that automatically hides OT posts?

 

[Couchpotato]

Is it to late for me to chime in and say BG3 isn't a true BG becuseuse it doesn't have a travel map. Kingmaker and PoE are the true successors. Flame shield activated.

Kidding but man I miss the travel map.

 

[Morrandir]

Kidding but man I miss the travel map.

Yes I'm with you on that (despite coming to a different conclusion about BG3 being a BG game or not).

On my first playthrough I didn't use any tadpoles. On my second I used as much as I could get. For me the powers are quite underwhelming except tjose that you nlock when you take the astral tadpole (which I did not).

 

[Vaelith]

This is why they can never please everyone. Some people love travel maps, others think that makes the world feel disconnected and a bunch of hubs instead of a real landscape.

I have no preference. Travel map is fine, connected world is fine. It's a detail I couldn't care less about, I just want the game to be good where it has to be good. But if it made you guys happier, I'd include a travel map.

 

[bjon045]

It does have a travel map - when you press "m" you get a map you can click on locations to travel to them?

The old gold box games called the top level map an "Overland Map" which is what a lot of other games use as well. I would call the main map in BG1/2 an overland map as well. It would be good if the game did have an overall map that spans across Acts for people that don't have the collectors edition map so they can see how everything hangs together. Is there already something like that in the game? I never found it/saw it if it is already in there.

edit:
This is the map I was referring to: https://forums.larian.com/ubbthread...page=4&Main=100079&Words=distance&Search=true
It would be cool if that was in game. Is it already there?

 

[Couchpotato]

It has one map with fast travel locations in each act.

It's nothing like in past games were you clicked an overland map for different areas, now it's all one huge hub. Similiar to their older Original Sin games. Not the same.

Anyway it's just a nitpick as it doesn't feel as open world anymore.

 

[Silver]

I don't think BG3 could be a sequel to BG2 because BG2 is a 2nd edition D&D product. The feel of 5th edition is very different for good and bad. Personally I value versimilitude so I like everything making sense and being grounded in the setting. BG3 was pretty good in some areas for that and quite bad in other areas.

 

[Redglyph]

I prefer not having the travel map. The open-world map is more immersive and you don't get repetitive, small areas, the annoying random encounters, plus all the loading screens.

I don't think BG3 could be a sequel to BG2 because BG2 is a 2nd edition D&D product. The feel of 5th edition is very different for good and bad. Personally I value versimilitude so I like everything making sense and being grounded in the setting. BG3 was pretty good in some areas for that and quite bad in other areas.

For my part, I see the lore and the ruleset edition (or even the ruleset) as completely different things. Same with the graphics engine and whether it's TB or RTwP. It's not related to the story.

Not that any of those things are related to BG3's ending.

 

[Morrandir]

edit:
This is the map I was referring to: https://forums.larian.com/ubbthread...page=4&Main=100079&Words=distance&Search=true
It would be cool if that was in game. Is it already there?

That's exactly what I meant.
By not having any overview map you don't get a feeling about where you are in the bigger picture.
For example why is there a choice to go either through a mountain path or throigh the Underdark? With a map you can see this.
Or for better immersion. After you crash land with the Nautiloid you wake up on a beach. But what kind of whater body is this? Lake, river, sea? With a map you can see this.
The game currently gives the impression (id you don't pay close attention) that Wyrm's Fortress and Baldur's Gate are directly connected, which is wrong. With a map you can see this.

They just could have added this a a screen when loading/traveling.

 

[JDR13]

For example why is there a choice to go either through a mountain path or throigh the Underdark? With a map you can see this.

Do you really need to see something like that though? Personally, I'd rather discover it on my own.

 

[bjon045]

Do you really need to see something like that though? Personally, I'd rather discover it on my own.

Agreed. I think it should only appear on the map once you have actually been there like in BG1/2. If someone has told you about it then it could be grey like in BG2.