What Are You Playing: 9 Years since the Last Dragon Age

[Mechalich]

I mean to do smuggling right, you need at least some version of supply and demand; not necessarily a dynamic economy, just stuff that is cheap but legal at A, and expensive and illegal at B. And some sort of meaningful system for getting it from A to B without getting caught. These are totally normal features in space games, but ain't really part of the Bethesda Package. And boy does Starfield not stray from the package.

It probably would also help to not have the standard singleplayer RPG economy, where the question isn't if you end up wealthy beyond all practical application, but whether you get there at hour 6 or are all slow and don't go Scrooge McDuck until hour 7. You know, might make doing illegal stuff and running risks for money mean something in game.

Yeah, the core gameplay loop just overwhelms everything. I mean, you can smuggle contraband from place to place, and you can even make a bunch of money doing it, but at the end of the day that doesn't accomplish anything in game. I mean, yes you can buy ships and houses and deck them out like you're playing futuristic pimp-my-ride, but it's all totally optional. It's very much like how, in Fallout 4, you can build a giant network of incredible settlements full of people and huge skyscrapers and greenhouses, but, the game has absolutely no mechanism to reward you for doing so (it is possible to abuse the outpost system for lots of XP, but that won't result in any real construction, just a giant pile of components in boxes).

Starfield is a standard open-world game with a very basic gameplay loop: get a quest prompt, go to a map marker, murder everything that moves at said marker, turn in quest, earn XP, use XP to power up. In typical Bethesda fashion the 'murdering' rapidly outpaces the 'quest completion' aspect of the XP equation too, meaning you can just dispense with talking to people entirely and seek out procedurally generated map markers to kill as many mobile bags of XP and loot as you want.

[Rodin]

As much as everyone raves about them, I don't like Larian games. Haven't been able to get through any of the Divinity games and thought maybe working in the DnD setting would push them out of their comfort zone into something I'd find more appealing. Instead, they dragged it into their zone and made it worse. It's a well-made CRPG that doesn't suit my tastes at all and I'm not about to argue it's wrong to like it, but I can't see what makes it a "generational touchstone." It doesn't do much that other CRPGs haven't already done, and I find it does several things worse. To its credit, it has an extremely polished presentation, visuals, and acting.

The main reason I dropped it about 30h in is out of boredom and lack of interest. Mechanically, owing to the issues of 5e and further worsened with Larian's homebrew, it's not a challenging game. Narratively, it's kind of a mess and doesn't present a very interesting plot hook either. Finally, I find all the characters grating since they're written like OCs trying to out-cool each other. When the protagonist feels like the least important part of the party, I think that's a sign they messed up.

All that said, I'm probably going to ruffle feathers voicing those opinons. I know I'm in the minority and I'm sure I like other games that people would be up-in-arms about, so don't let me yuck your yums.

Don't worry, I absolutely get it. BG3 is very Larian, and if that's not your thing that's not your thing.

The reason it's getting so much attention instead of just "oh hey, Larian made a really good RPG" is the sheer depth of things you can do in intuitive ways. Casting an illusion spell to make the boss investigate before your Rogue pushes him down a pit, and that instakilling the boss? That's something most games either can't handle or won't allow. There's a small burrow hole up high you can't reach, so you stack boxes up to get height, then turn your Druid into a cat before chucking him into the hole? Again, really cool intuitive problem solving. Add into that great depth into how you play your character, a ton of class specific dialogue solutions (my Bard has pretended to be a god twice already and I'm barely into Act II), and some really specific voiced dialogue options and it's easy to see why everyone is wowed.

To pick on Bethesda again, the general assumption has been that you can only answer a sidequest with "Yes, No, Yes but pay me more" has been that the voiced dialogue is too much to deal with. Yet BG3 has specific voice lines for Astarion replying to a Druid PC making a specific request, something that only a tiny portion of the playerbase is going to see. It's very much a "wait they can do that!?" feeling throughout the game, and the radically different ways you can affect the plot while not breaking the script is truly impressive.

Whether or not any individual thing is unique to a CRPG, very few games (if any) has put them together in one package like this.

[Zevox]

All I can say is if you're giving up on BG3 you're missing out on a generational touchstone.

Eh, speaking as one of the five people in the world who have never played Skyrim, missing out on a "generational touchstone" that you know isn't for you is perfectly fine and sensible.

[Erloas]

Eh, speaking as one of the five people in the world who have never played Skyrim, missing out on a "generational touchstone" that you know isn't for you is perfectly fine and sensible.

Totally, I don't think I ever played Skyrim, maybe the one before, or maybe it was that one and I just forgot. But after like my 3rd attempt at a Bethesda game I realized they were very much not my style and haven't looked back at them.
I would like to try BG3, but finding the time to play, and paying for it when I have so many other games (including gamepass) is just hard to justify. But I also think you can't call any game a generational touchstone until it's been a year or three, it's the games people are still talking about well after they're released that are (gaming) culturally relevant, being popular at release doesn't mean that much.

[MinimanMidget]

Eh, speaking as one of the five people in the world who have never played Skyrim, missing out on a "generational touchstone" that you know isn't for you is perfectly fine and sensible.

Yeah, I'll take a mediocre game that's fun to play over a "generational touchstone" any day.

[WritersBlock]

Actually playing daggerfall thanks to unity and really loving it, I think its peak elder scrolls, (morrowind a somewhat close second, both are even better with mods) I just hope the unity devs do not go through with that stupid "Charge per each install of a game" stunt that could REALLY cause some massive issues.

[Errorname]

Yeah, I'll take a mediocre game that's fun to play over a "generational touchstone" any day.

A game isn't going to become a generational touchstone without being fun to play.

[Psyren]

Yeah, I'll take a mediocre game that's fun to play over a "generational touchstone" any day.

And I'll take a great game that's fun to play.

Eh, speaking as one of the five people in the world who have never played Skyrim, missing out on a "generational touchstone" that you know isn't for you is perfectly fine and sensible.

I didn't say it couldn't possibly be justified; I'm still free to express my pity.

When the protagonist feels like the least important part of the party, I think that's a sign they messed up.

I'd say Larian actually did the protagonist bit better than anyone has in recent memory. You can be an Origin Character if you want a defined history and pre-existing relationships in the world, a Custom Character (Tav) if you want to be a mutable blank slate who learns everything about the world at the same time the player does... and Dark Urge if you somehow want both. It's brilliant.

Having said that, if the gameplay/engine doesn't appeal then there's indeed no getting around that.

[warty goblin]

A game isn't going to become a generational touchstone without being fun to play.

But fun to play is not a universal feature of a game, it's how an individual reacts to a game. I (used to) really like RTSs, just loved 'em. I could play Company of Heroes, Battle for Middle Earth 2, Dawn of War, any number of other weirder and more forgotten titles for absolute hours. Hated Starcraft. It wasn't that Starcraft wasn't like my all time favorite, I really profoundly did not like it. Can't say I got on with Warcraft III either*. Some games just don't work for some people, because beyond basic facts like "it crashes at startup" game quality is pretty much an entirely subjective thing.

*I'm not sure Blizzard has ever made a game I reacted to with anything better than profound indifference. That's right folks, I hated Overwatch before hating Overwatch was cool.

[Zevox]

Totally, I don't think I ever played Skyrim, maybe the one before, or maybe it was that one and I just forgot. But after like my 3rd attempt at a Bethesda game I realized they were very much not my style and haven't looked back at them.

Same. I tried Morrowind, Fallout 3, and briefly Oblivion. Same result every time, not a fan, to put it mildly. So I passed on Skyrim, and every Bethesda game that's come since.

Yeah, I'll take a mediocre game that's fun to play over a "generational touchstone" any day.

That's not what I meant. If a game is popular enough that people call it a "generational touchstone," it's probably a very fun game if you like the sort of game that it is. But it's entirely reasonable to give it a look (whether by actually playing it or just seeing previews/videos/etc), see that it's not going to be to your tastes, and pass on it. Nothing is going to truly be for everyone.

I didn't say it couldn't possibly be justified; I'm still free to express my pity.

I see nothing to pity in someone's tastes differing from yours.

[ArmyOfOptimists]

I'd say Larian actually did the protagonist bit better than anyone has in recent memory. You can be an Origin Character if you want a defined history and pre-existing relationships in the world, a Custom Character (Tav) if you want to be a mutable blank slate who learns everything about the world at the same time the player does... and Dark Urge if you somehow want both. It's brilliant.

I profoundly disagree with that. It's one of the things that bothers me most about D:OS2 and BG3. The game is written for you to be in control of one of their Origin PCs. If you don't pick one of them, you either play a cardboard cutout (in BG3's case) or lose out on a chunk of story (in D:OS2). In BG3, a custom character feels bizarrely out of place next to the rest of the party, as it contains legendary figures like The Blade of Frontiers, The Demon Veteran of the Blood Wars, Mystra's Chosen, and... Tav. There really aren't any options to fill in your backstory, so even if you try to headcanon your character as something greater, you have no way to interject that into the story. You're a guy trapped at the crossroads of everyone else's story already in progress. Even the tadpole thing isn't unique to you and your crew, as you trip over another tadpoled NPC every hundred steps or so.

It's like you sign up for a new DnD campaign, come to the table, and the DM immediately tosses a folder out. "Here, I made you all characters." And if you reply "Oh, that's alright. I brought my own," he gets huffy and tells you that he wrote the campaign for these characters and, while you're free to pick your own, he's not going to rewrite a single line to accommodate you. I can't speak for anyone else, but if that happened to me, I'd just pack up then and there.

Take a look at Kingmaker. You also start as a blank slate there, with the only caveat being your character has to have heard of the job to deal with the Stag Lord, but you're immediately the fulcrum of the adventure. You're the leader of the party, the baron and eventual king. In comparison, BG3 is written so that everyone shares the same tadpole backstory, which makes anyone that doesn't have their own personal quest line feel lesser. Dark Urge corrects this (and I understand it was originally the default player character story), but only if you're okay with your character being a murderous psychopath. Even if you fight it, it's made clear that you were depraved before the game kicks off. It's not like the previous Baldur's Gate games didn't have a defined hero with a canon backstory, so I'm not sure why they didn't just lean into it*.

Picking an Origin PC is the obvious other step here, but as I said in my first post, all the Origin characters fill my bingo card of annoying fantasy fanfiction tropes. At some point I might try playing the game again by simply kicking all the Origin characters out and running with a full party of hirelings. It won't really fix the lack of good protagonist, but at least I then it'd be my party as a sort of ensemble one.

*^{I do. It's to make multiplayer less awkward.}

[warty goblin]

See, I really like being a nobody in BG3. I really profoundly dislike being all chosen one special at the beginning of a game. I find it quite enjoyable being a pretty normal seeming person just thrown in the deep end. If I'm going to be a blank slate character, a nobody is by far my preferred variant.

Yeah sure a bunch of the NPCs have cool epic backstories. They're mostly next level screw-ups now, and so all that's fodder for amusing drama. This is as it should be, I'm here for fantasy hijinks, not to be told I'm awesome for the princely achievement of turning on the game.

[ArmyOfOptimists]

You're not a super special chosen one in Kingmaker either. Just some adventurer who hit a home run. Kinda. The first couple chapters of that game do a lot to express that you're in way over your head. You're still the main character of the story, though.

BG3 wants an ensemble cast instead of a single hero but my custom character ends up feeling like a last minute diversity inclusion who's just there to fill out the poster. As someone pointed out in the BG3 thread

Spoiler

Show

the whole plot can be sidestepped since dying causes the tadpoles to detach and you have Revivify scrolls or hit level 5 soon enough to cast it yourself. The party could round-robin cave each others' heads in, pop the tadpoles out, and be done with it. If so, everyone in the party would still have a motivation to adventure except for the main character, who'd just return to Baldur's Gate and whatever they were doing.

[Psyren]

I see nothing to pity in someone's tastes differing from yours.

Not what I meant.

I profoundly disagree with that. It's one of the things that bothers me most about D:OS2 and BG3. The game is written for you to be in control of one of their Origin PCs. If you don't pick one of them, you either play a cardboard cutout (in BG3's case) or lose out on a chunk of story (in D:OS2).In BG3, a custom character feels bizarrely out of place next to the rest of the party, as it contains legendary figures like The Blade of Frontiers, The Demon Veteran of the Blood Wars, Mystra's Chosen, and... Tav. There really aren't any options to fill in your backstory, so even if you try to headcanon your character as something greater, you have no way to interject that into the story. You're a guy trapped at the crossroads of everyone else's story already in progress. Even the tadpole thing isn't unique to you and your crew, as you trip over another tadpoled NPC every hundred steps or so.

Oh, so it's not just gameplay. So you dislike Larian games because of their custom protagonist's lack of history and ties to the gameworld... but you like Bethesda games. Where protags like the Dohvakiin, Dusty, Vault Dweller, etc are the blankest of blank slates. ...Okay then...

As for the BG3 companions - their "legendary" titles and exploits literally don't matter thanks to the tadpole, so it comes down to raw talent and luck, like it would with any blank slate protagonist. Tav being on equal footing with them regardless of your own experience level is justified in the story. (Not that I think Tav is necessarily canon anyway, I view them more as an accessible entry point for newcomers to the world, franchise, or even CRPGs in general.) But to each their own.

[warty goblin]

You're not a super special chosen one in Kingmaker either. Just some adventurer who hit a home run. Kinda. The first couple chapters of that game do a lot to express that you're in way over your head. You're still the main character of the story, though.

I did like that about Kingmaker, would have appreciated it more if it actually stuck to its guns on that for more than 30 seconds before introducing an NPC who immediately decided I was just so awesome it was her life's mission to chronicle my awesomeness. But that's forgivable, because she's at least charming and I'm a sucker for an in-universe narrator. Sadly playing Kingmaker runs headlong into the unfortunate and inescapable reality of... actually playing Kingmaker. I kinda low key hate 3.5, and PF1E raises that to a decided medium key level of dislike.

I also don't really care about being the main character, if anything I prefer to not be. It's just so narratively limiting to write a story where the protagonist is the sucking black hole of anti-personality that is the blank slate character, I'd really rather not. I don't care if I'm the center of attention, if the writing is better when I'm not,not, all means shine the spotlight somewhere else. And I really don't need the game to tell me I'm awesome all the time, which RPGs have a very bad habit of doing, its awkward and makes me feel kinda uncomfortable, like watching a waitress flirt with a boring old businessman because it's kinda her job, except I'm being cast as the businessman. I just wanna run around a fantasy world here, you don't need to laugh at my jokes!

[ArmyOfOptimists]

Oh, so it's not just gameplay. So you dislike Larian games because of their custom protagonist's lack of history and ties to the gameworld... but you like Bethesda games. Where protags like the Dohvakiin, Dusty, Vault Dweller, etc are the blankest of blank slates. ...Okay then...

My previous comments both called Starfield "average at best" and mentioned that I found BG3 "narratively a mess and lacking an interesting plot hook," so I don't know where you got the impression I like Bethesda games or only had issues with Larian's gameplay design. This seems like a you issue. Sorry I don't like the things you do.

And it's not so much that I dislike blank slate protagonists. Kingmaker, which I've referenced three times now, is my personal pick for best CRPG and has a blank main character, too. I dislike how Larian's "OC don't steal" characters overshadow the protagonist and make you feel superfluous in your own game.

Funny story: I hit a bug in BG3 where the game literally shunted Gale to the main character position. He replaced my character as the lead and NPCs would prioritize talking to him instead. I had to chuckle at how the game literally shoved my character out of the way.

[Anonymouswizard]

I'm convinced that the Dark Urge is the intended BG3 custom character, due to them having actual connections to the story and a motivation to keep adventuring (a cliché video game one at first, but it can quickly switch to revenge in later acts). It makes their lacklustre skills rather noticeable (thematic, but Medicine shows up the least of the 'lore' skills and Intimidate is the social skill most players will likely use least).

Like, going from the Dark Urge to a Tav makes Tav's lack of story very noticeable. All the minor changes make it feel more complete. I feel like Tav is either a remnant of Early Access or included because someone in the chain between the coders and Hasbro wanted background selection.

[Psyren]

Sorry I don't like the things you do.

No worries!

And it's not so much that I dislike blank slate protagonists. Kingmaker, which I've referenced three times now, is my personal pick for best CRPG and has a blank main character, too. I dislike how Larian's "OC don't steal" characters overshadow the protagonist and make you feel superfluous in your own game.

They're no Larian, but I'm a fan of Owlcat too. Besides, a rising tide lifts all ships, as the saying goes.

I'm convinced that the Dark Urge is the intended BG3 custom character, due to them having actual connections to the story and a motivation to keep adventuring (a cliché video game one at first, but it can quickly switch to revenge in later acts). It makes their lacklustre skills rather noticeable (thematic, but Medicine shows up the least of the 'lore' skills and Intimidate is the social skill most players will likely use least).

Well it's particularly weird because Haunted One in actual D&D doesn't have either of those proficiencies. Moreover, D&D backgrounds give you 4-5 to choose from rather than locking you into a static 2.

I'm hopeful BG4 uses the OneD&D rule of making all backgrounds have mutable proficiencies, much like they removed static racial bonuses prior to release.

[Zevox]

I profoundly disagree with that. It's one of the things that bothers me most about D:OS2 and BG3. The game is written for you to be in control of one of their Origin PCs. If you don't pick one of them, you either play a cardboard cutout (in BG3's case) or lose out on a chunk of story (in D:OS2). In BG3, a custom character feels bizarrely out of place next to the rest of the party, as it contains legendary figures like The Blade of Frontiers, The Demon Veteran of the Blood Wars, Mystra's Chosen, and... Tav. There really aren't any options to fill in your backstory, so even if you try to headcanon your character as something greater, you have no way to interject that into the story. You're a guy trapped at the crossroads of everyone else's story already in progress. Even the tadpole thing isn't unique to you and your crew, as you trip over another tadpoled NPC every hundred steps or so.

Sounds like you're describing every create-a-character lead game ever to me. I mean, I prefer my games to have a defined main character over a create-a-character one personally, but when the game is literally D&D being able to make your own character is kind of expected, so have to work with that, and that means there's only so much that can be done to integrate you into things if you want to keep the player's options for what they're playing open. The fact that they let you play one of the companions with the "Origin Characters" options is actually a really cool option I'll have to consider using at some point - despite the disappointment losing out on that character's voice acting if you do that...

I'm hopeful BG4 uses the OneD&D rule of making all backgrounds have mutable proficiencies, much like they removed static racial bonuses prior to release.

If they do that, they should really try to make backgrounds actually matter next time, because as-is all they seem to do is determine half of your skills and when you gain inspiration. I admittedly was a bit disappointed that, despite my first character getting plenty of unique dialogue because she was a Cleric of Selûne, the game never reacted to the fact that she was a Noble. As a Baldurian, that should mean she's form a Patriar family, but that never came up, even once you got to Baldur's Gate itself. I get that they've already created an absurd amount of unique dialogue for various situations of various kinds and this is just another layer on top of that, but it kind of sticks out, particularly with a background like that.

[Psyren]

If they do that, they should really try to make backgrounds actually matter next time, because as-is all they seem to do is determine half of your skills and when you gain inspiration. I admittedly was a bit disappointed that, despite my first character getting plenty of unique dialogue because she was a Cleric of Selûne, the game never reacted to the fact that she was a Noble. As a Baldurian, that should mean she's form a Patriar family, but that never came up, even once you got to Baldur's Gate itself. I get that they've already created an absurd amount of unique dialogue for various situations of various kinds and this is just another layer on top of that, but it kind of sticks out, particularly with a background like that.

I mean to be fair - "Noble" could mean you were a noble somewhere else who merely happened to travel to Baldur's Gate at some point, rather than a Patriar of the city. Conversely, you can be a very high-up Noble in the city itself but not have that background at all (cf Wyll, whose father wasn't merely a Patriar, he was on the Council of Four.)

IMO - either they should have a specific meaning for each background (e.g. "Noble" = "You are specifically a Patriar of the City, and you have X and Y relationships/ties that come up in conversation beyond just your generic breeding and education) - or they shouldn't tie conversation options to backgrounds at all, and just focus on skills, class and species. Either route removes all ambiguity.

[Errorname]

I profoundly disagree with that. It's one of the things that bothers me most about D:OS2 and BG3. The game is written for you to be in control of one of their Origin PCs. If you don't pick one of them, you either play a cardboard cutout (in BG3's case) or lose out on a chunk of story (in D:OS2). In BG3, a custom character feels bizarrely out of place next to the rest of the party, as it contains legendary figures like The Blade of Frontiers, The Demon Veteran of the Blood Wars, Mystra's Chosen, and... Tav. There really aren't any options to fill in your backstory, so even if you try to headcanon your character as something greater, you have no way to interject that into the story. You're a guy trapped at the crossroads of everyone else's story already in progress. Even the tadpole thing isn't unique to you and your crew, as you trip over another tadpoled NPC every hundred steps or so.

When is the custom player character ever more interesting and fleshed out than the companion characters. The origin character concept and an optional defined backstory and personal quest for custom characters is way more than genre standard, and it works fine. I don't even think the 'legendary figures' for the companions is accurate, Gale being "dude who fumbled a goddess" is the only one that seems excessively important. Wyll and Karlach have previous accomplishments and ties to important people but they're an exiled noble playing wandering hero and a runaway experimental soldier, and that's still only half the origin companions.

It's not like the previous Baldur's Gate games didn't have a defined hero with a canon backstory, so I'm not sure why they didn't just lean into it*.

I feel like Tav is either a remnant of Early Access or included because someone in the chain between the coders and Hasbro wanted background selection.

The Dark Urge is an optional choice for a reason. I don't think they'd have been willing to go as far as they did with that character if you couldn't opt out of it. Either they would have watered down the Urge so that you still had a lot of freedom to define your character or they would have made a lot of people very mad that they can't play a custom character without being railroaded into murdering a nice bard who wants to be your friend.

[Zevox]

I mean to be fair - "Noble" could mean you were a noble somewhere else who merely happened to travel to Baldur's Gate at some point, rather than a Patriar of the city. Conversely, you can be a very high-up Noble in the city itself but not have that background at all (cf Wyll, whose father wasn't merely a Patriar, he was on the Council of Four.)

The game seems to have decided for itself that my character was a Baldurian, since it gave me those dialogue options. (I suspect it might do that for Humans and Half-Elves, due to lack racial dialogue options? Just a guess.) Given that and me having the background, the end conclusion is obvious.

Wyll has a different background for a couple of reasons. One, his folk hero status is more important to his character than his father's status as Grand Duke. Two, he wasn't actually born into nobility - his father got elected to his status* as a result of his work in the Flaming Fist, and not that long ago, only four years prior to the events of BG3, well after Wyll's birth. I don't remember if this gets brought up in the game, but it's in Descent into Avernus. And even without the background, the game obviously accounts for his backstory fine, because he's a defined character, so it doesn't need to draw upon things like his mechanical background to determine things like that the way it does with your character.

Spoiler: *Explanation for that.

Show

For whatever reason the four Dukes of the city of Baldur's Gate are elected positions, chosen by the Parliament of Peers. Since that group is made up of the city's nobles the Dukes are usually nobles, but sometimes someone who has worked their way up and gained enough popularity in the city gets elected to Duke status despite not being a Patriar. Ravengard was one of those.

[Psyren]

The game seems to have decided for itself that my character was a Baldurian, since it gave me those dialogue options. (I suspect it might do that for Humans and Half-Elves, due to lack racial dialogue options? Just a guess.) Given that and me having the background, the end conclusion is obvious.

There are a handful of [Human] dialogue options but IIRC they are largely jokes, e.g. the mirror.

Wyll has a different background for a couple of reasons. One, his folk hero status is more important to his character than his father's status as Grand Duke. Two, he wasn't actually born into nobility - his father got elected to his status* as a result of his work in the Flaming Fist, and not that long ago, only four years prior to the events of BG3, well after Wyll's birth. I don't remember if this gets brought up in the game, but it's in Descent into Avernus. And even without the background, the game obviously accounts for his backstory fine, because he's a defined character, so it doesn't need to draw upon things like his mechanical background to determine things like that the way it does with your character.

I totally agree that Folk Hero is more important for Wyll's story and they made the right choice, but that's not my point - my point is he was still raised as a noble, i.e. going to balls, being educated to take over as a Duke, learning politics etc. That they picked the right background for him doesn't mean that that one wouldn't have also fit. And similarly, for your custom protagonist - being a noble doesn't mean you have to be a Noble. Ravengard may have been elected to his role, but Wyll did grow up in the life.

[Ignimortis]

All I can say is if you're giving up on BG3 you're missing out on a generational touchstone. Whereas Starfield is just another Bethesda RPG - not bad, but not great either.

I honestly don't get the BG3 hype. Got through most of Act I and dropped it, and to me it seems like another case of DAO - a genre that isn't used to high production values being pseudo-rejuvenated by a game that presents itself well to a larger audience. And apparently, since 80% of my friends have gotten through the game several times and had lots to tell about it, Act I is by far the most impressive part of the game in terms of choosing your own path and general polish, with Act 2 and 3 being far more linear and dry.

Then again, I don't vibe with the characters, either. Every single companion I've seen thus far seems to have "being unusual" as the core design goal. Played some Rogue Trader beta a while back (despite honestly disliking WH40k a lot, but Owlcat games are solid so I gave it a go), and the characters presented there are far more likeable to me (especially Abelard and Pasqal), despite being pretty "basic" from a uniqueness standpoint.

Starfield outright refused to launch on my PC (well above minimal reqs), so I have no opinion on it...yet. But I have no high expectations by default, Bethesda has been on a decade-long decline at the very least.

[ArmyOfOptimists]

Every single companion I've seen thus far seems to have "being unusual" as the core design goal. Played some Rogue Trader beta a while back (despite honestly disliking WH40k a lot, but Owlcat games are solid so I gave it a go), and the characters presented there are far more likeable to me (especially Abelard and Pasqal), despite being pretty "basic" from a uniqueness standpoint.

I'm on the same page. I may have been a bit too critical calling them "OC Don't Steal Fanfiction", but they definitely have a forced coolness that makes me dislike them. Giving most of them crazy impressive backgrounds with the excuse that the tadpole took away their levels didn't jive with me either.

I like when relatable, mostly normal characters get into extraordinary situations. Valerie was probably my favorite companion in Kingmaker and she's designed to be Just a Knight.

When is the custom player character ever more interesting and fleshed out than the companion characters. The origin character concept and an optional defined backstory and personal quest for custom characters is way more than genre standard, and it works fine. I don't even think the 'legendary figures' for the companions is accurate, Gale being "dude who fumbled a goddess" is the only one that seems excessively important. Wyll and Karlach have previous accomplishments and ties to important people but they're an exiled noble playing wandering hero and a runaway experimental soldier, and that's still only half the origin companions.

Honestly, I feel most CRPGs have the player character as the most interesting character because it's their story. The player character in BG1+2 is a Bhaalspawn of notable strength, raised by a former Harper, on a quest to avenge his master against his half-brother. The character in Pillars of Eternity is given psychic abilities that also threaten to drive them mad. Wrath of the Righteous has you go from a normal dude to embracing some aspect of godlike power and leading armies.

Maybe I focused on the wrong things or I'm just bad at putting it into words, but what irks me about BG3's custom protagonist is that the story has effectively nothing to do with you. If the Bhaalspawn had been murdered in BG1, the best you can hope is that maybe Imoen takes your place, but she's probably not capable of it. If the Fallout vault dweller dies to a radscorpion, the water chip is never found and the Master's plan works. If the PoE watcher dies, the party can't get the information it needs to resolve the story. If the Wrath of the Righteous commander kicks the bucket, the crusade fails and the demons win. If the BG3 hero died in the nautiloid crash, really nothing changes. The origin characters meet up on the beaches and search for a cure as usual. There's nothing specific to your tadpole or your character, you're just one of dozens. It's not really a story that centralizes around your character being the prime actor - you're more or less a hireling.

And like, I get that some of those other plots are leaning into the Chosen One stuff (though I'd argue only WOTR is really a Chosen One plot), but Kingmaker doesn't. If your character died in the opening attack, most likely Tartuccio's plan works and Pitax takes over (and given how Pitax is governed, it crumbles within a year). You're not really chosen, you just outplay him.

The best way I can put it is, while playing BG3, I couldn't shake the feeling that I was playing a DnD campaign with a DM who really wanted to tell me their story rather than collaborate on one.

[Psyren]

Putting aside that BG3 has some pretty excellent visuals, and not just for an isometric RPG - I mean, if "genres with high production values" are one's primary concern, well, big budget shooters like Call of Duty rule that particular roost. But I'd wager at least some of us are after narrative, characters, and above all, choice.

I agree that Act 2 is on the linear side - you've got one mission for the most part, and all roads lead you there. But Act 3 is just as open as Act 1 if not moreso. You have three very clear objectives once the act starts, but a wide variety of paths to take in getting to each of them. You can be a standard hero, side with the villains, side with them temporarily and betray them, betray your allies, pursue their agendas, neglect them in favor of your own goals, succeed or fail in about a dozen different ways... etc.

[Errorname]

Maybe I focused on the wrong things or I'm just bad at putting it into words, but what irks me about BG3's custom protagonist is that the story has effectively nothing to do with you. If the Bhaalspawn had been murdered in BG1, the best you can hope is that maybe Imoen takes your place, but she's probably not capable of it. If the Fallout vault dweller dies to a radscorpion, the water chip is never found and the Master's plan works. If the PoE watcher dies, the party can't get the information it needs to resolve the story. If the Wrath of the Righteous commander kicks the bucket, the crusade fails and the demons win. If the BG3 hero died in the nautiloid crash, really nothing changes. The origin characters meet up on the beaches and search for a cure as usual. There's nothing specific to your tadpole or your character, you're just one of dozens. It's not really a story that centralizes around your character being the prime actor - you're more or less a hireling.

It's not like the world doesn't hinge on the actions of the party. It's just that Tav specifically doesn't need to be in it for that to happen, and I don't see how that's a problem. It's kind of a necessary consequence of letting you play as characters who aren't Tav. It does put the entire party on equal footing and doesn't place anyone as a clear leader, which is just how you write a good multiplayer D&D campaign.

I'd say that's weird for a CRPG but BG3 literally does have a multiplayer mode. If you wanted to you could play through the entire game with three friends as a virtual campaign.

[Psyren]

It also does have an in-universe "party leader" mechanic - whoever the Guardian thinks of as lead, the artifact/prism will jump to. In most playthroughs that will be the MC (Tav, Durge, or Origin.)

[Cygnia]

Gonna hopefully try the demo for The Thaumatuge in a bit.

This demo did intrigue me (enough to wishlist it), though I'm still trying to figure out the mechanics and how to apply upgrades better. Hoping once the final game drops things will be made more clear.

[warty goblin]

Had a prod at Lords of the Fallen 2023, the reboot/remake/sequel oh whatever nobody cares about the original anyway.

It's a soulslike. Boy is it a soulslike. The map design is like a bucket of sheep guts in a tumble dryer, lots of blood and all tangled up.

Combat is surprisingly not awful though. It isn't good, the adherence to soulslike principles like animation canceling into a block is for cowards is hard to animate and this combat model is stuck at Blade of Darkness from 2001 means it isn't exactly smooth. But the animations aren't as agonizingly slow and exaggerated as is common, so it doesn't feel like controlling an overacting narcoleptic sloth. There's a lot of lunge on the attacks, which makes things both faster and more dynamic because you can cover ground offensively and also slightly spastic, but on the whole I think I prefer it. I definitely do not prefer the lock on, which is awful. It switches targets constantly, loses targets frequently, and exists to cause pain. Definitely something that needs a patch.

This particular souls clone's claim to fame is that there's an entire second world of the dead overlaid on the normal world of the living, which you can look into and/or fully enter at any time. This is useful for solving puzzles as, inevitably, there's different routes available in the dead world. You can only leave the dead world at specific points, and more dangerous enemies spawn in the longer you stay, so you can't chill there indefinitely. It also functions as a second life, if you die in the normal world you get shunted to the dead world for another go, die there and its back to the bonfire.

So after maybe an hour and a half, I'd say it's surprisingly OK for a soulslike. It still has that traditional soulslike unfinished tech demo feel, where I can't help but think the devs still need to come back and add content that isn't just some context-free irrelevant dudes you need to stab, but the stabbing is pretty good. The double world tech is excellent, the art design is good in that vibes-only we don't actually have anything to say dark fantasy way you'd expect, and its tolerably fun. 9/10 on the soulslike curve, so a solid 7 for a normal game.