Oh I know, I’ve lurked here since I made it to act 3 but I’m feeling particularly low so today I’m trying to comment more! You’ve been feeding my meme addiction like you wouldn’t believe.
Just started a new playthrough with the mod that removes the party size limit - and damn, it’s awesome not to have to choose. Of course it makes things a good bit easier, but to have so many more companion dialogues and so on… Wow, it really improves an already amazing experience.
Same here! Even on Tactican it’s very easy with so many players on the field. So what I’ve done is reskill most of my characters and start to really have fun with it. I’ve utilized spells and manoeuvres which I previously had omitted for being too weak, buffs and debuffs I never would have considered for the action economy, more or less useless roleplay stuff, or simply some funny shenanigans. My battlefields are more colourful and playful than ever. It’s not a tactical challenge for sure, but damn it’s a lot of fun to play this way.
And all the banter :D That’s almost the best part of having the whole band together.
They have varied characters because different people like different things. "Characters you don't enjoy" aren't and shouldn't be a design goal. That's idiotic.
They have varied characters because different people like different things.
That’s what the writer is saying, though? She’s saying it’s good for games to have characters some people consider “bad,” because what’s “bad” Is different for everyone. It means a game has a well-rounded cast of characters.
“Bad” does have inherent value because one person’s “bad” Is another person’s “awesome.”
I think Gale is “bad” as she’s defining it because he’s boring and his squishy ass kept getting curb-stomped when I tried to use him. I also hate the way he tries to romance you and the incel vibes I got of him. But go on tumblr and folks just adore him and his romance. What makes him “bad” to me is a selling point to others. That’s what I think the writer is trying to say.
I think they are being a bit pretentious with their fun fact side note, as if playing a paladin and romancing shadowheart isn’t really compelling, and is fundamentally undeserving of being the most popular option for a first playthrough. Its especially weird to me that they like Karlach but dislike Wyll, because I feel like they are very similar.
It doesn’t matter who your bad companion is. […] But as long as you have one (and only one), you know you’re in for a great game.
That all aside, their conclusion is wrong anyways, because people are perfectly capable of liking the whole cast, and they probably would enjoy bg3 more if they also enjoyed Wyll. Having an ensemble cast means the writers maybe don’t have to worry too much about any particular character being hit or miss, those misses are allowances, not targets.
Having an ensemble cast means the writers maybe don’t have to worry too much about any particular character being hit or miss, those misses are allowances, not targets.
I don’t think the writer is talking about having characters people don’t like as what the game writers spoiled be aiming for, but that from the point of view as a player, if there’s a character you just to not like, it means the game is written well. Which to me makes sense, because you don’t care one way or the other about a character that’s not written well. For you to actually dislike a character, they’ve got to be well written because they feel like a person.
Wyll is bad for the reason I find so many companions bad in games like this. He’s good: too good. I felt the same way about Kaidan in Mass Effect, who is the archetype for these sorts of companions. They’re always very nice people on the surface, often driven by some military code that holds virtue and justice above everything. Then they have conversations mostly about bread or how clear water is, reveal some deep burden, and then keep on smiling throughout it. It’s supposed to be admirable. But it’s dull. It presents a character who has no flaws, and when faced with their greatest challenge, they simply smile and shrug.
It doesn’t seem like that’s how they feel, and this paragraph to me says the opposite. Their complaint about wyll is that he is (to them) unrealistically too good of a person. I don’t know about you, but I frequently actually dislike characters because they don’t seem like real people, which seems to be the article author’s position on Wyll.
More damning that they've been able to put into words exactly why I don't care for him. And notice that I did not say I disliked or hated him, I do not care about him enough to have something to hate about him. Which is a MUCH bigger problem, storywise. He's not unlikable, he's bland.
It's not even like he doesn't have the capability. He has a fair number of things the writers could have worked with. A semi-pampered noble forced to strike out on his own, who is very obviously trying to find absolution by making a name for himself as a hero he's questionably cut out to be? For all he bleeds idealism and dreams of being a protector, you have the option when you first meet to say you don't have the slightest idea who he is.
Don't tell me that doesn't have every hallmark to be just as compelling as anyone else in the group. But he's not. Somehow, a plot like that is easily outshone by Gale, whose whole thing is he did a Stupid one time and now his ex that he can't get over is being really mean to him. That's the basics of Gale's storyline. And it manages to be more interesting, mostly because he manages to feel several ways about it.
He doesn't have Astarion's complicated hatred for his own physical form. He doesn't have Karlach's recognizable PTSD response to the idea of slavery and life in Avernus, stopping at what feels like general disgust and annoyance. He does share Gale's overblown self-image and Shart/Lae'zel's hyper-devotion to a cause, but those are not traits that are ever drawn into question for him like theirs are. Whatever goes on with him, he seems to accept it with minimal self-blame.
The end result is a character that is, like the article says, a walking shrug. That he doesn't have to be only makes it more frustrating to experience. He has all the elements required to be just as compelling as the others, but instead he just stands there like the adventuring equivalent of a fat friend and the article spins this as necessary if we're to make all the others look good. To suggest it's even a contributing reason all the others look good.
The author seems to have misunderstood that the opposite of love is not hate. The opposite of love is apathy. I wish I disliked Wyll the way I used to hate Lae'zel, because it would have meant he struck me enough to at least form some sort of meaningful opinion about him. As it is, I simply don't even care enough to dislike him. He could be removed from my game and I don't think I would notice. They dropped the ball.
I wish she would have given any insight into why her wife loves Wyll as much as she does. It would have been invaluable to know the other side of it, even if the way she wrote off Astarion immediately and forever makes me suspect it's mostly a personality preference.
The first time I saw Wyll’s scene, it was especially horny because I set my camp clothing for all the characters to be nothing, so he was buck ass naked doing that dance routine.
Wyll stayed at camp my entire first playthrough while I adventured with Astarion, Karlach, and Shart - it was so much fun. Things are different this time round though. Time to see if he grows on me.
baldurs_gate_3
Oldest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.