Note that is a rant and is not very coherent and I've not finished it yet. I'm forcing myself to complete it as I'm a fan of BG1 and 2 but is a chore to play.
There are people, including on this site, that are praising BG3 for role-playing along the lines "sure is woke but I can role-play how ever I want".
My experience is exactly the opposite. Just few things I noticed.
1.The dialogue options are not satisfactory.
I've showed no interest in the druid elf dude but he offers you sex despite barely speaking with him and you can't get mad at and say "you degenerate either leave my camp or die". In fact you can't tell any companion to leave the camp permanent. You can't even tell that to other people that show up in your camp.
There are a bunch of abrasive NPCs that you can't tell them, bitch either tone it down or there is going to be violence. Sometimes you get intimidation checks but this is not what I'm aiming at, but the proper response to a bitch that treats you like shit despite being a group of heavily armed individuals that should be known at one point.
There is no nuance to refugees, either you support it or you are evil. You have no reasonable path for them. The game also pushes "the poor refugees" angle like crazy. Even the druid dude says something along the lines of baldurs gate people deserve death for being reluctant to take in the refugees.
As an example, there are some refugees squatting in someone's house and you can't use money to buy them accommodations elsewhere or better yet, give them money and supplies and get the frell out of there, there is a freaking army heading their way. And of course they treat you like a monster if you chose to evict them.
I understand there are some shady things with the dude who owns the house but that is just further manipulation from the writers to make it reasonable for refugees to take over ones house without the owners permission.
The lesbo priestess of Selune and her lover are bitches in how they act towards the priestesses father sacrificing himself to save her from death. The avatar of female frequency smashes his head several times in anger, sure he kept her locked up but it was towards saving the one she supposedly loves. I should be able to point that out to them.
- Sometimes ignores your choices or tries to force "the right choice". I told the lesbos to not come to my camp but they came anyway. Why is my character ok with having them there against his will and no dialogue option later to talk about it?
There was another scene with Wyll trying to sneak in the camp to kill Karlach, I told him to leave and never return, frankly he should have died there but I was merciful. The game tries over and over to make you take him in your party despite not making any sense.
- Several times my character is acting gay against my will. I've never gave any indication of being interested in Gale but suddenly I can see my character throwing seductive looks towards him and then sitting right next to him. I would expect the gay action to happen only if you show interest.
The same with the emperor. I was 100% against him from the start but it does not stop my character to sit down and throw glances like we are best buds, including a strange scene with him with his shirt off. Again I told him he was a monster from the start, why is the monster flirting with me.
- Evil choices are not well thought off. For example, if you choose to give Nightsong to Lorroakan you get no reward despite being a contract and he mentions a huge reward. You can call on them later but that made 0 sense. And this happens in several quests.
In previous games the evil choice was designed to be tempting. Better rewards to test you as a player, was an interesting idea.
- The role-playing of some NPCs is just over the top. You get the 3 bad guys do a captain-planet summon and one of them is an edgy emo dude. You also get some over the top evil guys that are cartoonish evil with no depth or anything that would make them interesting.
I've seen NWN2 mods that had better NPC role playing then this game.
There are some nice one, Lae'zel and Shadowheart are surprisingly interesting and their reactions seem more natural for their personalities. I understand that Lae'zel wants to have sex with you but I must have missed that part.
Here's what the "as long as they give me options not to participate" crowd need to understand: soon, that option won't exist.
They have been training people with all these "playersexual" romances into eventually forcing your created characters into becoming gay against your own will.
To my recollection I definitely noticed it with Mass Effect. You couldn't just be friends with one of the male characters (can't remember who), any sort of friendliness would then move into opening up the gay options, which was ridiculous even back then (I believe it was either Mass Effect 2 or 3?)
Games have been forcibly moving in that direction ever since, if not outright making main characters gay to "anger le Nazis!" to reducing or restricting options in avoiding/condemning homosexuality when you encounter it.
I don't think there is any [current year] RPG that lets you outright tell a gay couple, "You're engaging in degeneracy!" and then have the option to either put them to death or have them carted off to jail. I suspect the next series of RPGs will literally have your character preference as gay and you will have to -- at every turn -- fight to keep them from becoming a reprobate.
You can see this clear as day with the "just ignore it, bro" crowd over the pronouns in Starfield.
Dragon Age 2 was the first time I encountered the "playersexual" thing, and it made me appreciate the game less, because it made most of our companions lose a part of their identity, and contradict things they'd say in other playthroughs. I remember Sebastian being the only one who was strictly heterosexual, but being a DLC character, he felt lacking compared to the rest of the cast in most situations.
At least I remember both Dragon Age: Origins and Dragon Age 2 having the options to straight up tell a companion that you had no interest in them, and that closed the romance flag with them for good, unless you used a mod to access the console and changed it. There was no option to just straight up flag all homosexual romances as a "Nope", though. Had to be done individually. Although as far as I recall, Origins only had two bisexual characters, Leliana and Zevran, and that fact was a constant with them, regardless of your own sex. Everyone else was straight.
If they ever did that they'd probably explicitly list that as an ultra-evil option but then they'd also run the risk of pissing off the leftists by even putting such a triggering scene in the first place. Pandering to them is why we can't have any form of mature storytelling anymore and it's all going to be SJW tropes.
Yup, pretty much. Even in games that are supposed to be "mature" the storytelling is always handled with kid gloves and always themed around spectrums of Left-wing sociopolitical talking points, all to avoid the wrath of Twitter mobs, just like you said.
There is also no bro-mance, guys that you can have some form of camaraderie with. In BG2 you had Misc, in NWN2 you had Kelgar and in NWN2: MOTB you had Gannayev but none in BG3.
You know why they don't do that? Because that would be presenting men in a positive light and they can't have that, men are always the bad guys now, especially if they're straight white men.
Specifically, they don't want to encourage heterosexual male bonding. Think Sam/Frodo in LOTR. To them, a man either needs to be on some woke girlboss's leash or gay.
Okay, I'm going to ruin this for you now, in the original books Sam was actually quite gay for Frodo and yes I've read the books, the studios toned that aspect of it down to make it more family friendly in the films. The girl at the end for example that Sam ends up marrying never existed in the books, she was entirely an invention of Hollywood.
You should probably read the books again then:
J.R.R.Tolkien, The Return Of The King: Being the Third Part of the Lord of the Rings (p. 151-152)
Brotherly love is one of the core themes of Tolkien.
>Ok Ok, LotR isn’t gay, but Isaac Newton and the Greeks DEFINITELY were!
Did I somehow get my hands on a weird version of the book? Because I don't remember that at all lol I'm not bullshitting either. Read a lot of fantasy books when I was younger. Could be misremembering to be fair.
Edit: It really is remarkable how on the internet you're not allowed to get things wrong sometimes which is why I end up sympathising sometimes with people these days.
You’re allowed to get things wrong, it’s just that on a site like this you’re discouraged from spouting literal faggot propaganda, especially when done so in the r*ddit style “umm ACKSHULLY” format you did.
I'm not going to bother with that sort of thing when people just interpret my posts how they like, that's their problem, not mine. Otherwise you just waste your life spending several hours trying to defend yourself from no lifers and it gets tedious as fuck. That's some proper life advice for people on how to deal with the internet by the way.
No idea. The copy I quoted from is from the second edition printing from 1965. Sam mentions Rose a few times in Fellowship and Two Towers, but I dont happen to have the passages on hand. Hey at least now you have a good reason to read LOTR again.
LOL true, I didn't even realise there were different editions.
How about you just take your lumps, because your comments in this chain are smug predditor faggot shit.
You spoke definitively about something you were 100% wrong about, and instead of admitting fault and moving on you start bitching about "not being allowed to get things wrong". Several others have pointed out (with more patience than me because I've got almost none left for the likes of you) where you were wrong and you persist in your self inflicted victimhood. Perhaps the prudent course of action would've been to confirm your position before acting like it was irrefutable.
If anything, people that get things this wrong need to be MORE severely derided, not less. Every mouthbreathing cunt with an obamaphone thinks their opinion is infallible. Just fire your retarded bullshit off into the ether and then act like you are the aggrieved party for getting exactly what you deserve.
Are you retards really still trying to reply to this? I moved on ages ago. You're just as brain dead as the redditors you mock.
The rule I've found is if there's any single thing wrong with a comment it gets downvoted even if it's 90% true.
In this case, readers here clearly want to believe Sam+Frodo was just brotherly love, but if Sam were gay what would he have done differently from the books? Nothing. And "trimming the verge" does sound like a euphemism for something.
People say Oh Tolkien was Catholic he could never write a gay character - as if the Catholic church hasn't been full of gay pedos for like 1500 years now. Tolkien didn't seem personally affected by it, but I bet he was wise to it. And didn't Martin Luther famously say "I'm sick of this gay shit" (in German of course) when he made his own sect?
edit: Sam's marriage to Rose could be a so-called lavender marriage. It's three long novels full of elaborate prose and the only evidence Sam isn't gay is a one-liner that he got married/had kids - and that he was conflicted about it. Ok...
He probably wouldn’t have fucked and impregnated a female Hobbit
Finally, someone else gets it.
This exact thing has been happening all over pretty much every .win community but most especially conpro and here. I've pointed the same thing out but your brevity really marked it for exactly what it is.
Oh please, no this is just me disagreeing and getting it wrong but apparently you can't take that.
Learn to take an L.
"I screwed up but you're the problem" is a bitch move.
I admitted I was wrong for fuck's sake, what I was chatting about was other stuff. I'm not going to waste my time with bad actors who accuse me of being a subversive because they literally have nothing better to do than pick a fight with somebody for several hours. If people won't accept that, then that really is their problem, not mine.
Riiight the born again Christian J.R.R. Tolkien wrote gay characters. I bet he consulted his best friend C.S. Lewis after he completed The Screwtape Letters or Simple Christianity.
You're a fucking moron.
Not to be pedantic, but born again Christian is normally a descriptor of Protestants, and Tolkien was so Catholic he had the liturgy memorized in Latin and would recite it on the rare days he missed daily mass.
Most people who claim Frodo/Sam were gay never read the books and are fantasizing based on what happens in the movies, which have no homosexuality at all. It also shouldn't be surprising that a good number of us here have read the books.
It was specifically the stairs of Minas Morgul I'm thinking of, this is what people don't realise which is making me wonder now if I somehow managed to end up getting some weird edited edition if there were ones that had it changed. People don't realise I'm not trolling on this one lol or maybe I'm misinterpreting that as an almost gay scene because it seemed pretty gay to me at the time even when I was younger. At least when I read Shannara and the Serpentwar saga all of that was straight content. It is an old book so maybe it was just the writing style that weirded me out.
The issue is simply that “X was actually gay all along” is a tired, degenerate leftist/communist/faggot trope meant to erode our respect for tradition and our ancestors.
No, Sam and Frodo weren’t gay because they’re two male friends on an adventure
No, the Greeks weren’t gay because they invented bathing
No, Newton wasn’t gay because he dedicated his life to God and Natural Philosophy
No, Obi-Wan wasn’t a faggot because some dyke wrote him as one in a short story 50 years after the creation of the character
lol those last three are definitely you and I feel like this site has understandably gotten defensive over that because of how much leftists really do infiltrate everything and try to turn it gay. It's a shame you guys can't gatekeep that hard when it comes to everything else because then you'd be more effective.
Hi there. I've owned the Lord of the Rings since before you were born.
Sam isn't gay in the books. That idea only arose because of Sean Astin's unfathomable overacting.
PO-TA-TOES!
That is likely part of it, but I think that there are two other major factors as well. Firstly—as is frequently shown with lefties reinterpreting past literature and historical figures as gay—lefties have trouble with parsing deep platonic friendships, particularly between men, as anything other than homosexuality.
Secondly, and perhaps the first issue plays into why people write like this, is the rise of “playersexual.” Sure, it’s kind of nice that you can get romantic with whoever fits your RP (or your desire for titillation) but if every relationship is written so that the “max relationship status” is sex, then that means that no relationship will be written with an ultimate endpoint of “true brothers in arms.”
Game developers should make an option in character creation to lock in romance options such as normal, faggot, degenerate, or none. But i honestly doubt this will make the wokies happy that people can opt out of homosexual interaction.
No such thing as "faggot" as distinct from "degenerate"
The Baldur's Gate series was dead to me as soon as they went back and wedged a modern American-style transgender character into the original story, which makes it way easier to not really care about the queerness of 3.
That was beamdog and their horrible enhanced edition crap
Haven't noticed that one yet. Tell me who it is, so I can kill it?
What? I never played enhanced. What did they add?
ACkshUaLLy iT's AbOuT ETHICS iN SkUlLbAShInG!
Several companions that can be gay romances and a trans character.
A trans character other than Edwina? That was the best use of "trans" in any game ever.
Heresy and desecration.
Literally someone who needs beaten with a belt, namely the cursed one from Aerie's circus after you free her and Quayle since its a Cursed Belt of Sex and would actually do for them what is supposed to be the point 🙄
Failing that pray to one of the God's for divine blessings, buy a Greater Wish, or piss off Elminster since he proves he can cast the spell to do the same thing when Edwin is dumb enough to do just that. It's literally a world setting where someone can actually transition completely but still the characters get added.
But then they wouldn't be able to scream for attention about how they're a precious special unique character that everyone and their dog should bow down and worship.
Attention whores gonna attention whore.
Or more accurately, shortly after leaving Candlekeep and save-scumming an Ogre to death.
Edwina is the best trans characters ever made and her interaction with Misc are priceless.
Edit: Not sure why I got downvoted. For those that do not know Edwin in BG2 puts on the cursed belt of sexes so he changes to Edwina. He is now literally a man stuck in a woman body. If you have Misc in your party, Misc hates Edwin for killing/ trying to kill Dynaheir, the one he was protecting, to the point he can try to attack him. Once Edwin turns to Edwina, Misc does not realizes it is the same person and tries to flirt with her while Edwin is incredibly annoyed. This makes sense do to Misc low intelligence, Is incredible good writing and very funny.
I disagree with the point about Edwina being trans, Edwin simply fucked up and was a man stuck in a woman's body trying to get his original body back. Sure there might have been times of body dimorphia but it wasn't because he felt he was born in the wrong body, it's because he's a Red Wizard of Thay and arrogant enough to stupidly play about with powers beyond his ability. Then later when he manages to fix it he does something similar when challenging Elminster which results in him being turned into Edwina again, but probably not for any trans related reasons. More likely it's Elminster being the crazy old coot he is and punishing Edwin for being a dick yet again by Dwayne Dibbly-ing him a second time.
Also as MargarineMongoose points out it's not the belt Edwin uses, it's the scrolls you find under the graveyard if you let Edwin keep hold of them. He fucks around with it a few times and when it goes wrong he ends up a woman until he works out how to undo it. In the mean time both party and npc interactions make fun of this like when a fellow wizard learns of what happened and mocks Edwin to his face. I think the response is a fireball from Edwin, or something similarly lethal spell wise.
I completely agree, since is not a mental illness but it is a men stuck in a woman's body. I don't care if he can be considered trans or not, I just think it was incredibly fun to see him get upset.
BG2 was pre-Obama writing, so a character changing genders has virtually nothing to do with transgender as it exists today.
I agree, it was back when this stuff was funny.
No, he fumbled the Nether scrolls. It had nothing to do with the girdle.
That said I'll agree, he provides some top tier party banter during that part of his quest.
There's a difference between being transformed by magic into a different type of being, versus being a psychopath who mutilates their own body and tries to force everyone else to bend to your will.
If they're going to force you to be a fag sexually, they might as well do it politically as well.
Its an open game so long as you do as we say.
Can you murder every character?
I'm still early in the game, I shall adopt this playstyle.
The faggy vampire kidnapped a gypsy camp's kids.
Baldur's Gate 2 is one of my favourite games ever and I'm not touching this cash grab and nostalgia bait. The Bhaalspawn saga ended with Throne of Bhaal and no attempts to revive it 20 years later will change my mind.
There is nobody left to fight that matters. Sarevok was set up very early in BG1 when he murdered Gorien while coming for the protagonist leading to the revelation about the protagonist's parentage. Irenicus is introduced immediately at the start of BG2 and stomps the shit out of everyone who is dumb enough to get in his way signifying just how important he values the protagonist. While not the actual final antagonist the ToB expansion revolves around Bhaal so much it's named for him. When the dust settles the number of Bhaalspawn left is either one or none, not counting the one who teleport when scared because he can die in Saradush if you don't cast a Horror spell on him so his fate isn't important.
But because D&D is now trendy various groups and grifters are looking to milk the hobby and related media for everything they can, which inevitably means dumbing the games down in order to appeal to an even larger audience now.
You owe these parasites nothing. They likely view you as little more than nothing. When these franchises fail the ones who drove them into the ground neither care or suffer any consequences since they will still fall into a new job doing the same shit in a different spot. You owe them nothing.
While I wouldn't trust any modern developer to make it, I would accept a divine campaign for a third game centered around cementing your place in the pantheon.
Problem there is embracing your divinity is only one of the ending options, you can give it up to live as a mortal and bang elves.
Seriously, every single romance option in the original BG2 was some kind of elf. Jaheira: whiny elf. Aerie: wingless Avariel. Viconia: emo elf. Anomen: basically a whiny elf despite being human. Bonus love triangle event: Haer'Dahlis: pirate/Jack Sparrow elf.
Anyway, the devs elf fetish aside, many sequels to games which can end in multiple ways have the same problem of picking what is canon and deciding which may end up pissing off large portions of the fan base if one still exists.
Mass Effect Andromeda got around this by relocating so far away, and having originally taken place before 3 ended so the ending ironically wouldn't matter, that it didn't matter what the story was. Mostly because it was shit and never actually completed, but still.
There are Witcher comics set after 3 which face the same problem and ended up just going with several options which made sense for the most part but also ignored character development that took place in some of the games. In the comic Geralt chooses Yen over Triss, Ciri survives, and for some dumb reason Dandelion breaks up with Priscilla despite her being probably the best and last option left to him for an actual wife since every other woman he's hooked up with knows he's an annoying twat. There is multiple dialogue in the third game where Dandelion makes clear the way he feels about Priscilla is different from every other woman he's known and yet the comic ends the relationship off panel.
Accepting or rejecting the collective divine essence of Bhaal however is such a significant event, no matter the outcome, it would mean having to make two completely separate games just as a baseline and modern devs can barely make one game these days, let alone two.
Jahiera, Misc and Sarevok make an appearance. Is the reason why I wanted to play.
So far, Jahiera is kind of boring and old but not as bad as Luke in the new star wars, she is still a Harper and she is out there fighting. I was just hoping she would be more impressive considering she was in both BG1 and BG 2. She also does not seem particularly wise, just meh.
Better that than to kill off her husband and make her gay. Seems to be a trend these days to ruin legacy characters in the worst ways possible.
You are the problem then.
The fact that they make an appearance at all is reason enough for me to condemn this whole farce of a game.
People just can't fathom that what's already been given to them is enough. They want more. They always want more and damn the consequences.
Now you've defaced a masterpiece.
Was it worth it?
Sadly, no
The fact that they do makes me exceptionally angry.
Just think about how ridiculous it is to have them show up again centuries later.
In all three cases it makes sense within the world.
That was very jarring to me, in Baldur's Gate 2 all of them had proper endings especially if the female characters romanced the protagonist.
Viconia definitely had an ending if you romanced her 👀
You also forgot bloodaxe who was an awesome and hilarious companion. Plus you get to murder the harpist. BG2 was great for playing evil. I find path of the righteous even better, however. Killing good guys has never been so fun.
The evil characters were the best characters in that game, I still played mostly good alignments but evil runs have been a lot of fun
Korgan was one of the better written characters. Not because he was deep, but because he felt genuine. He'll gut you for a copper or because you looked at him wrong, but he'll also gut you for trafficking in child slavery.
Agreed with all of your points. The game does seems to expect you to roleplay in a specific alignment to the point you as the player becomes either a cheerleader or a doormat to affirm all the beliefs that the devs think is "good", and this even include scenes clearly written with modern moral sensibilities (lefty woke guzzling). Thus the game rewards you for being a woke goody two shoes and it somewhat breaks if you play otherwise.
Baldur's Gate -> D&D -> Wizards of the Coast
No thanks. Had enough of their bullshit in Magic: The Gathering.
Man, they ruined that hard. Shame, I was playing it, probably decades ago.
This is the real culprit here. I think OP isn't entirely wrong, but I as a superfan of BG1 and 2 and a big fan of 3 as well, I can see that most of the "woke" (but not all) here comes from Larian needing/buying the WotC DnD license, which entails agreeing to all kinds of "representation" stuff. I played DoSII and the distinction is pretty clear.
Nice, a fellow Farscape fan. I just started rewatching it again yesterday. I forgot how good that show is.
Man, I'm so tired of this shit, and this shit writing. It's obnoxious when they claim to give you choice, but it ends up being Support Current Thing versus Be Very Evil. Bitch, no.
I’m completely bemused by people who bought this game. Woke=broke unless you buy their fucking crap. D&D is captured and yet some of you people bought it expecting it not be woke? Don’t you have any fucking back bone.
Edit: The webcomic is "Nerf Now!"
There's a web comic I regularly check which has a [Brazilian?] creator who frequently posts about how dumb woke things are. Then he bought BG3 and started making updates about it! 🙄
I can't remember the comic name off the top of my head but it's the one where the creator is a purple tentacle creature like from Day of the Tentacle called Jo. A lot of the supporting characters are fembended TF2 characters like "Angie" the engineer.
It just seems incredibly short sighted to complain about Wokeness so much and then jump on the next normie bandwagon.
I doubt most people on this forum bought it.
That's the funny thing isn't it? It has absolutely nothing to do (to my knowledge) with BG1 and BG2. It just plays in Faerun/Sword Coast and BG. That's it.
Yet you feel compelled to finish it due to the name.
I eventually play it (I like the Forgotten Realms setting), but only after there was enough time for patches & mods.
They bring back Jahiera, Misc and Sarevok. This was the main reason I wanted to play. Larian have some real fans of the series but they had to drown it in leftism.
That's called nostalgia bait, especially with Minsc who is meme tier while the other two are a whiny harpy, I mean Harper... maybe, and someone who might not even be alive depending on player choice at the start of ToB when in the planar pocket dimension.
Yes I completely agree, I couldn't bring myself to even hate play through Act 3 because it got so cringe and annoying. It's the little things as well, if you've already been romancing someone the game doesn't acknowledge that and you still get the gay forced on you so all these people trying to gaslight gamers complaining about this really are gaslighting.
There was a thread I saw made on the steam discussion page where a self-proclaimed gay guy was complaining about how the gay guys were constantly trying to fuck everything in sight and in typical fashion he got dogpiled by the leftists claiming he was right wing.
It's not just that, there's the little things that are pissing me off about the game too which should have never made it to release. The inventory screen actually manages to lag which indicates they're bloating that somehow. When you set your filters for the inventory they don't refresh if you sell things so you keep having to filter them according to what you want each time which is a pain in the arse.
Something really bad that a lot of RPGs are guilty of is they don't clearly indicate in your inventory when they do give you quest/side quest items whether something is necessary for the continuation of the game or not which would be another way to solve the issue of please let me clear my inventory of quest related garbage I don't need anymore.
The raycasting is truly awful in Act 3 because they just built the city they wanted to make and didn't think about the game mechanics at all which indicates to me these devs are not gamers. Because of the way their camera works the camera constantly borks as you're trying to make your way through areas so with there being multiple levels of elevation you're constantly wrestling with the camera in the city to get the angle you want and also click something. Even the flags stretching across the alleyways I've noticed have collision on them which is an incredibly stupid decision because it actually interferes with you trying to target enemies if they get up on the rooftops which they will because of the advantage checks.
There is just so much more wrong with Baldur's Gate 3 than the gay sex and this is the classic way that the streisand effect always works in a devs favour. I'm mad at right wingers, because this game would never had taken off so hard if they didn't all start bitching about the gay bear scene all at once. They ended up helping the game get more successful than it necessarily would have which honestly, is an example of why right wingers have no business in the culture war because they suck at it.
The culture war was lost because right-wingers thought it was not important and the youth would wake up once they got in to the job market.
If anything they were to lukewarm on the gay-bear sex and all the sexualization and trans stuff. Right-wingers need to learn from muslims
Right-wingers, at this point, are just controlled opposition. They believe nothing more than a watered down version of what the left believed 10-20 years ago. They don't believe that countries should stop flooding their cities with migrants. They think "they should come here legally". They don't believe that people should be able to defend themselves. They "back the blue".
Right wingers just don't get it and never will, that's why gamers need to form their own faction and tell both sides to fuck off.
That makes 0 sense. Right wingers have been the only ones pushing back on woke, why in the world would you want to form your own faction to accomplish nothing?
Right-wingers have been right on LGBT, on communism, on school propaganda, immigration, anti-white racism, media propaganda and feminism. Sure they come up as some old and uncool but I fail to see why that matters at this point.
Lethn is a eurofag IIRC, and talks as if euro politics and their completely cucked right are the assumed default. While the american GOP is pretty bad and divorced from their voter base it's not this thing he envisions as "the right".
Just a reminder that even Obama, before running for POTUS, expressed openly that marriage was "between a man and a woman".
They've been utterly useless in pushing back, they've barely managed anything on stopping crossdressers from going into women's toilets. The thing is as well, this is even on issues they're supposed to deeply care about and they still fuck it up. The most effective thing the right have done was the boycott movement against target, but honestly a lot of normies got involved in that as well who were fed up with the pride month virtue signalling, same for the bud light stuff.
I agree, they have been kind of useless but they are correct and they need propping up in the culture war, not abandoned.
Thank you for at least admitting that because a chunk of people on this site would rather fight with me and accuse me of being left wing when I'm not. I mean I wish the right wingers would at least get their act together on the stuff that mattered but what I've noticed is they would rather spend their time pretty much nerd bashing because they view gamers and other hobbyists as easy targets instead of doing anything meaningful and it pisses me off.
None of the people in normie gaming forums I follow really cared or even noticed that it was "controversial". They just thought it was hilarious, and they think it fits in perfectly with the humor of the series. I'm not sure the opposing voices were amplified enough to reach them through the Streisand Effect.
Yeah true, I had a look and most of the reviews are praising the game for not having micro-transactions, but at the same time I wonder, really that's all you care about? It looks like the bar has been lowered so much now that even I'm taken aback.
There is a tranny NPC which also has a troon voice actor. Even though this is inside a secret temple, if you attack/kill this specific npc it will actually spawn the guards from the streets above right into the room. I tested it and it did not happen with any other npc there. The game is pozzed.
Finished it literally a few hours ago, it had so much potential but was unfortunately let down so much by its absolutely terrible writing.
If it had some competent writers I would actually recommend it, the core gameplay is pretty fun and the visuals are great.
But my god, there were so many points where the writing just made me cringe and made me immediately disconnect and actively resent it even more. Theres a flying elephant detective in in (acted by one of the few actual male VA's) who acts like a cunt all the way through; For some reason they added him in the final area of the game with this line which is now etched in my immediate memory..
I'm no writer, I'm not even that good at English but fucking hell I hate this line so much
I've watched some of a BG3 playthrough and it just looks so boring, and I think it's because it's 3d. I've put it on a 2nd screen in the background and there's never been anything story-wise or dialogue that even caught my attention. In contrast watching BG2 I get drawn in by Irenecus every time ("die ever pathetic, ever fools").
Not only does 3d remove the need for imagination from the player, it also does so for the developers. They spend their time making models and geometry that looks good from any angle instead of story and character.
Like would a Chess videogame be better if it was 3d, with acted out battles between pieces, customized skins for the pieces, and so on? No it would in fact be a worse game than one with 2-color bitmaps.
These kinds of D&D games are games of fantasy and imagination and the more advanced the graphics the less of what makes them good. This is why Baldur's Gate 2 is still an amazing game today despite 90s-era graphics.
Glad I'm not the only one who's made that realization. Graphical fidelity has been a curse upon so much of the industry for decades.
Consider playing pathfinder wrath of the righteous
So I'm gathering it's on rails on not very open world? I was going to wait for it to go out at $20 but I might skip altogether now
Is not open world. If you've played DOS2, it follows the same formula for map/ encounter design.
Huh, I'm playing the game and I haven't seen anything that you're talking about.
1.1 The squatter refugee quest seemed well handled, IMO. If you don't do anything, none of the eviction squad are assholes, and just knock out the one dude that tries to fight them. The guy evicting them isn't an asshole either; he just wants to keep people out of his house so they don't find evidence of his blackmail.
1.2 I have no idea who the lesbian priestess of Selune is. The only Selune priestess I can think of was the one making the magic light dome, and she didn't have any love interest that I saw at the inn before she died.
A black man came into your house and said he wanted to commit a felony, by murdering one of your companions. If you kept him alive, that's your fault if the game kept shoving him in your face.
I really don't see what you're talking about. Some of the response options to Gale are a little fruity, but he's basically been normal and I don't pick the gay options. Also haven't seen anything like that with the Emperor. He's just been a bro so far and given me magic flight powers.
Lorroakan was clearly signposted to be a miser at the start, since he sent some value-bin adventurers who could have never succeeded. Also, I'm surprised anyone kept Nightsong alive, since she was the source of the antagonists power and killing wasn't even particularly evil. It just seemed like the most straightforward way to stop him.
Baldur's Gate has always had some pretty campy villains. Jon Irenicus from BG2 starts the game by torturing you and then stealing your soul. He's got better dialog lines admittedly, but he's just as over the top. BG1 villains were even more 1-dimensional.
Overall, I've liked that the moral choices seem more like choices. All the time that you spend infiltrating the enemy means you get to see their point of view. My biggest regret in the game is that I didn't realize Minthara could be a companion, because at that point in the game I hadn't understood that you're supposed to be getting intel and hanging out with the servants of the Absolute instead of just killing them.
They make this very clear and very obvious at the resolution of act 2 if she and her lover survive. They will join your camp for the rest of the game whether you want them to or not.
I admit you made me laugh a bit.
For number 4 it is my fault, I was trying to make good with Shadowheart and it felt like the good option for her.
Just a small on number 5, Jon Irenicus was also tormented by his love for the elven queen and hunted by the lose of his immortality, like his sister. I found that much more appealing then BG3 story.
I disagree about the moral options, there are not well thought out in my opinion. At least not for secondary quests, I think it stems from the leftist morality problem, they have none so either something is cartoonish evil or not evil. They can't understand that an action can be evil or not regardless of motivation.
I'm playing Dark Urge, and really enjoying it. For morality, it's not that the choices aren't evil, but they all make sense. It's not like the old games where good always gave you the best gameplay result and evil was just stupid. Evil choices here are sometimes just better (and sometimes worse).
Eg, I'm contemplating a second play through as good side, and I still think I might side with the emperor a little bit because at-will Fly for no action cost is that amazing as a power.
This is the first big RPG where I've actually enjoyed the evil options because they fit in with the character instead of being chaotic stupid. Other games have evil options and they lock you out and are self destructive, but I don't feel that way here. If you ever give the game another shot, I'd recommend just going in and playing like a role playing game as a person you want to be. You can be a badass who does what they want and doesn't take any shit. It's enjoyable and actually feels like a fully fleshed out path instead of an afterthought so they can claim there's 'morality options'.
The renegade option in the first ME was good and playing evil in NWN2: MOTB is interesting, if you've not played that one I encourage you to do so.
I'll think about giving it another shot, once I mod it to get all the woke stuff out but I need to first forget the first run.
MOTB is fantastic, if a bit short. The other two expansions really couldn't follow it up, but it'll stay as one of the best high level campaigns for CRPGs.
Are you talking about the very beginning of Act III? You can give them money and send them to an inn; you just have to tell the homeowner that you'll remove the squatters and then talk to the family's father and give him 100gp to pack up and move out.
It does require fighting the mercenaries who are angry that you've taken a job they were in negotiations for, but they'd already rubbed me the wrong way, so no real loss.
That was my initial intention but I did not see that option it was either talk to the owner on their behalf or tell them to leave. I'm not going to pick an old save to check so I'll trust it is how you say and I just did not read the dialogue properly.
It was kind of hidden, you had to agree to tell them to leave (possibly volunteer to do it for free), then talk to the guy and listen to him bitch about taking charity instead of stealing.
I wanted to go upside his head too. Larian's writing staff can pound sand.
Playing evil in BG3 is not at all well designed. In most cases, it just results in less content and less rewards. Part of this is because many evil decisions the game lets you make just involve being a murderhobo. You get the occasional dialogue where you can be a dick to force a reward out...but from my experience most of the time you get the same rewards for not doing that as well.
I think it was fine in most cases, it just meant you had to use evil NPCs and pick more evil lines. It was cool because I liked the evil NPCs.
That's just untrue. Have you actually talked to them in camp and read the options?
I still don't see an option. I double checked now. Was this patched later or something? I don't have the latest update installed.