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.
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!
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.
Ummm ackshully hon, Sam is Non-Binary thus he can’t be gay, he’s actually pansexual, but only for pans involved in roasting potatoes
Oh a book reader, nice
Oh what a gay opinion, what makes you say that?
Are you sure? You seem quite confident here
Ahh yes, Hollywood, the well-known purveyors of “Family Values” and “Fag-Free Zones”
Orly?
Tell me where I went wrong in my understanding of your comment
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.
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.
You did not and now don't get to move on nigger, you say something this fucking stupid and then double and triple down on it without ever admitting a mistake you can expect to be blasted for it, repeatedly. And you completely deserve it.
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
Is that so? It reads like she twisted his arm and he saw it as a duty of sorts, and lots of gay people got married and had kids back when gayness was not accepted.