Ghost Of Iron said:
I'd like to note that in the previews, they said that you cannot succeed without the companions. Each of them has a reason why they need to be part of your party, why they need to help you stop the end of the world. I am really getting tired of this trend in CRPGs, where the party or the companions are as important or even more important than the PC. The PC should be the protagonist and the driving force of the story and the game, companions should not take such a prominent position. BG3 also had this issue, where the companions felt like they were more central to the story than your PC is. Granted, that's a Larian issue in general, but it's disappointing to see other studios starting to follow suit, although you could argue it was already starting to happen even before the Larian games.
So the PC role is reduced into a lame, puss*whipped diplomat. In their past games the companions would still get sh*t done even if they were rivals to you or the other characters, and you could even get rid of them. Now you seem to have no choice but to kiss everyone's ass.
Gangrelrumbler said:
Tyranicon said:
Ghost Of Iron said:
I'd like to note that in the previews, they said that you cannot succeed without the companions. Each of them has a reason why they need to be part of your party, why they need to help you stop the end of the world. I am really getting tired of this trend in CRPGs, where the party or the companions are as important or even more important than the PC. The PC should be the protagonist and the driving force of the story and the game, companions should not take such a prominent position. BG3 also had this issue, where the companions felt like they were more central to the story than your PC is. Granted, that's a Larian issue in general, but it's disappointing to see other studios starting to follow suit, although you could argue it was already starting to happen even before the Larian games.
This is because the entire franchise/genre is now focused on simping for companions.
That wouldn't be a problem if said companions were were written well enough. The main problem with these is that nothing interesting can actually happen during these conversation since they aren't a part of the main plot. Not only that, there's little chance for any sort of dramatic reveal since they are better placed in the main plot as well. After all you can't put too much weight to a conversation which may or may not happen depending on the player and need to take place in between other adventures. So these characters can mostly yap about their personal philosophy and backstory. And you need a very talented writer (Like Avellone) to be able to make that kind of dialogue any interesting.
It was a mistake to make all companions as wordy as the Torment ones because you need a specific type of character to make just listening to their worldview interesting. It worked extremely well in Tormant where every companion was following his own philosophy and every one of them was kinda nut, but it doesn't work nearly as well for your typical fantasy companions. I mean there's a reason why in your typical D&D novels characters usually don't spend 5 pages discussing political beliefs.
Origins had two(!) romanceable companions who were heavily tied to the plot. This kind of complexity is apparently beyond the Bioware quick 'n' dirty cash grab scope now.
Tyranicon said:
Reinhardt said:
well, who else would simp for them if not biodrones? that elf thingy from dai had a face from which even mother would hide behind a locked door with an ax in hand.
And then you read the fan poll and find out Solas is the most romanced companion in the game.
View attachment 51551
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1vi-9XTyIx2kvu4hXb309b0NvdWL7Ub_Yj73le6WXzpI/viewanalytics
Do women like butt ugly bald men? That doesn't seem to have historically been true.
Also there wasn't a male romance for Solas? Wow, that's surprising lol.
I think this must have much to do with his exclusivity, at least on a metagaming level. He only romances female elves, and he's intertwined with the plot. Exclusivity makes people expect great things, whereas "pansexual" companions are viewed as the easy mode.
Cryomancer said:
But sadly we went from gender and "race"(species would be a better therm) affecting quests, story and attributes/aptitudes to "everyone is the same" bs
It really couldn't be any other way these days. Makes you think about everything else that has been contaminated by this global marxist dogma, and how far it has gotten before people started waking up. Too far for fixing without bloodshed?
Storyfa*g said:
Tyranicon said:
IIRC, if you can interbreed you are the same species
Nah, there are plenty of cross-species hybrids. The definition used to be that you're the same species if your offspring is fertile, but nowadays even some fertile lion-tiger hybrids were bred, so yeah...
They must consider the offspring's general viability as well - is it, on average, at the same level as that of the parents'? If it's consistently not, then the parents aren't genetically compatible. Even if the offspring are fertile.
