![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Bit of a ramble on BG3's writing because Neil made an observation on the story structure that I really like. Sex isn't the goal of the relationships in the game, it's the starting point. The romance is about how do they feel about each other after, what direction does the relationship go, what even is the character's relationship to sex, etc.
This is interesting to me because so many stories and standard ideas about story structure are 'you bone, you're done'. Will they, wont they? Well, they did so move onto the next. Books I've read on writing have been like 'once they are together, end ASAP'. An overwhelming amount of TV and movies follow that logic. It's nice to see such a strong break from that idea.
There is a common complaint about how gory the prologue is. I think this is by design and very good design. It's calibrating expectations. In some games, or shows, you don't know how dark / gory / etc they will get at the end. The prologue is very 'if this is too much for you, still time to refund'. Some people are upset that the prologue keeps them from the rest of the content, but it's very carefully calibrated to make sure you wont hit the ending and then go 'nope nope nope'. There is actually something extremely specific about the intro that is meant to give certain players a chance to ditch so they don't get sidelined by something totally unexpected at the very end.
One of the main dramas around BG3 since it launched is people not being able to play, and some of that is valid! If I was someone who couldn't play for some reason, I'd be very sad at seeing all the happy fans. Some people take it too far and use language they should not use. However, some of the barriers Larian tosses up are for good reason and they are right at the start. The intro is meant to be an exit ramp, and I think that is very good design on their part. It may also be a common design choice, but it's one of the things I've seen people complain about that's there for good reason.
On the technical side / UI side of things a lot of D&D nerds keep saying that the game needs more text explanations for game mechanics. But the game is designed for you to learn spells and mechanics by testing them out. Explaining the D&D rules for rolling with advantage/disadvantage would confuse new players. Instead, they visually show you how it effects the dice. I love JoCat but he's been very 'I actually went to school for graphic design and I can tell you that they should have blah blah blah' and it's sometimes about things where Larian said putting the the text harmed player comprehension, they tested this.
Also, graphic design =/= ui design.
One reason the game was under-estimated was because it's a turn based AAA game in 2023. But Larian was all 'most games are turn based, if you consider indie and mobile games to be games', and this logic paid off. This is part of why it sold so well. It went against the conventional wisdom of modern AAA design and gambled that a lot of people not considered to be 'real gamers' would take easily to their systems.
Okay, babble over.
This is interesting to me because so many stories and standard ideas about story structure are 'you bone, you're done'. Will they, wont they? Well, they did so move onto the next. Books I've read on writing have been like 'once they are together, end ASAP'. An overwhelming amount of TV and movies follow that logic. It's nice to see such a strong break from that idea.
There is a common complaint about how gory the prologue is. I think this is by design and very good design. It's calibrating expectations. In some games, or shows, you don't know how dark / gory / etc they will get at the end. The prologue is very 'if this is too much for you, still time to refund'. Some people are upset that the prologue keeps them from the rest of the content, but it's very carefully calibrated to make sure you wont hit the ending and then go 'nope nope nope'. There is actually something extremely specific about the intro that is meant to give certain players a chance to ditch so they don't get sidelined by something totally unexpected at the very end.
One of the main dramas around BG3 since it launched is people not being able to play, and some of that is valid! If I was someone who couldn't play for some reason, I'd be very sad at seeing all the happy fans. Some people take it too far and use language they should not use. However, some of the barriers Larian tosses up are for good reason and they are right at the start. The intro is meant to be an exit ramp, and I think that is very good design on their part. It may also be a common design choice, but it's one of the things I've seen people complain about that's there for good reason.
On the technical side / UI side of things a lot of D&D nerds keep saying that the game needs more text explanations for game mechanics. But the game is designed for you to learn spells and mechanics by testing them out. Explaining the D&D rules for rolling with advantage/disadvantage would confuse new players. Instead, they visually show you how it effects the dice. I love JoCat but he's been very 'I actually went to school for graphic design and I can tell you that they should have blah blah blah' and it's sometimes about things where Larian said putting the the text harmed player comprehension, they tested this.
Also, graphic design =/= ui design.
One reason the game was under-estimated was because it's a turn based AAA game in 2023. But Larian was all 'most games are turn based, if you consider indie and mobile games to be games', and this logic paid off. This is part of why it sold so well. It went against the conventional wisdom of modern AAA design and gambled that a lot of people not considered to be 'real gamers' would take easily to their systems.
Okay, babble over.
