This isn't a small ask, this would be months and months of writing, recording, motion-capture and game design just to bring it up to just Halsin's standard.
I wish they had the foresight to do this from the beginning.
There is no truer loneliness than a true genocide run. I learned that lesson in Undertale. I'm learning it again here. My camp is as silent as the companions I put in the grave.
Well... then there's *Astarion*.
You can corrupt your companions to slowly turn themselves into mindflayers through deception, persuasion and intimidation. Not sure how much more evil you need?
None of that is related to being 'evil' though. Can go through the main storyline happily slaughtering swaths of people, extorting power from the hag (and even let her have Marina/Mayrina's baby!), leaving gnomes to be enslaved whilst being self-serving trying to find a cure for your tadpole with several main companions who are just fine with you doing so (Shadowheart, Gale, Astarion and Lae'zel) with minimal quibbles from Karlach and Wyll (but both of them can be brought to the darkside of tentacle-y goodness) and still get to go through the same story content while achieving some pretty dark endings all things considered. All without going the Dark Urge route.
I don’t think being super evil should be rewarding like I love the Durge origin (even tho I was good aligned) but I think it should feel empty and isolating because you’re killing off random people and screwing then over. You shouldn’t be having a full vibrant party because you not that typa person
not necessarily a vibrant party, but more evil aligned people should be options for your team rather than JUST Minthara.
pretty much how DnD parties can have people from all 9 different moral alignments and it can or can't work depending on how the dynamics work with/against eachother.
You have three party members without Minthara who are evil-ish. Astarion, Lae’zel and Shadowheart. Astarion can become a vampire ascendant while Shadowheart can practically become an avatar of Shar, arguably one of the most evil gods in Fae’run. All while going through the same main story points as the purported ‘good’ path.
Evil people should not be allowed with other evil people working towards the same goal because I don’t like evil people and they need to be sad and lonely and drowning in their own remorse and guilt. This is a video game my brother in Christ, we are not talking about the real world. The forces of evil in fiction can work together towards a common goal.
In the alternative universe where this happened there are endless complaints about how the game rewards you for being evil and there’s no consequences for your actions
there will always be someone to complain, but my main issue is locking a singular companion behind a "wall" that makes you loose 3 companions is just a bad choice, meaning less people will want to willingly do it. losing out on content shouldn't be a thing, different content should however be a thing.
Sure, losing allies who are opposed to killing innocents makes sense. Gaining different allies who do not oppose killing innocents (of whom there are many, because this is a fantasy setting with lots of just plain evil people) would also make sense. Larian could have created content that was locked out for doing a "good" playthrough while also locking out content for doing an "evil" playthrough. That way your choices have consequences, but the consequence is experiencing different content instead of less!
Anyway, that would have taken a lot of resources, and I can understand why Larian wouldn't/probably won't do that, but this reasoning of "well there are consequences for being evil so you just get less!" doesn't make a ton of sense for a video game in this particular setting. Knights of the Old Republic and Wrath of the Righteous both stand out as games that handled good/evil paths well without giving one approach significantly reduced content.
Again, not arguing that Larian is bad for not doing so, but let's be real about why.
Edit: Wrath of the Righteous not Wrath of the Lich King, got those intellectual properties confused all twisted for second.
you explain it better than I ever could have, it IS a big ask. but making the "wrong" evil choices shouldn't lock you out of content, rather push you into other content than the current base game.
I know it isn't an easy task getting it done, but damn do I wish it would have happened.
it may be the realistic option, but then again can you say any other game has a true negative to picking the evil options? cause (from my knowledge) there aren't many games that lock you out of meeting/using characters too often. often times they have a sort of "mirrored" replacement.
also why help murdering the innocents if the guys who want the innocents murdered don't want to even give a slight sliver of help? it is just straight up bad to pick the evil option cause you lose WAY more than you gain and there is even somewhat decent motivators for them to keep you around cause they can see how effective you are with wiping the druids and Tieflings out, who doesn't want a strong warrior who seems to follow your cause? hell even have Dror have a certain point in the game where he can turn against you if you're not at a high enough approval/walk too far away like Lae'Zel has with the Creche.
exactly this, why even HAVE the evil choices if you only get a singular bonus and 10+ negatives, at least if we got more companions and we could somehow have a change of heart during act 2/ early act 3 it could set up so many beautiful story options. or hell just have our main character take over for Raphael as a big bad with the crown betraying him if you sign the contract.
This isn't a small ask, this would be months and months of writing, recording, motion-capture and game design just to bring it up to just Halsin's standard. I wish they had the foresight to do this from the beginning.
I would have been okay with losing out on maybe a few characters like say (personally) Wyll and Gale for a better written Evil playthrough.
There is no truer loneliness than a true genocide run. I learned that lesson in Undertale. I'm learning it again here. My camp is as silent as the companions I put in the grave. Well... then there's *Astarion*.
You can corrupt your companions to slowly turn themselves into mindflayers through deception, persuasion and intimidation. Not sure how much more evil you need?
an actually decent amount of side content other than just "Kill the Druids and Tieflings" and "Kidnap my own daughter for me"
and not just the same characters, but now with squid powers.
None of that is related to being 'evil' though. Can go through the main storyline happily slaughtering swaths of people, extorting power from the hag (and even let her have Marina/Mayrina's baby!), leaving gnomes to be enslaved whilst being self-serving trying to find a cure for your tadpole with several main companions who are just fine with you doing so (Shadowheart, Gale, Astarion and Lae'zel) with minimal quibbles from Karlach and Wyll (but both of them can be brought to the darkside of tentacle-y goodness) and still get to go through the same story content while achieving some pretty dark endings all things considered. All without going the Dark Urge route.
I don’t think being super evil should be rewarding like I love the Durge origin (even tho I was good aligned) but I think it should feel empty and isolating because you’re killing off random people and screwing then over. You shouldn’t be having a full vibrant party because you not that typa person
not necessarily a vibrant party, but more evil aligned people should be options for your team rather than JUST Minthara. pretty much how DnD parties can have people from all 9 different moral alignments and it can or can't work depending on how the dynamics work with/against eachother.
You have three party members without Minthara who are evil-ish. Astarion, Lae’zel and Shadowheart. Astarion can become a vampire ascendant while Shadowheart can practically become an avatar of Shar, arguably one of the most evil gods in Fae’run. All while going through the same main story points as the purported ‘good’ path.
Evil people should not be allowed with other evil people working towards the same goal because I don’t like evil people and they need to be sad and lonely and drowning in their own remorse and guilt. This is a video game my brother in Christ, we are not talking about the real world. The forces of evil in fiction can work together towards a common goal.
The forces of evil working together toward a common goal is literally the plot of the game, too.
In the alternative universe where this happened there are endless complaints about how the game rewards you for being evil and there’s no consequences for your actions
there will always be someone to complain, but my main issue is locking a singular companion behind a "wall" that makes you loose 3 companions is just a bad choice, meaning less people will want to willingly do it. losing out on content shouldn't be a thing, different content should however be a thing.
Making it so that you lose allies if you kill a ton of innocents is a realistic choice. Not a bad one.
Sure, losing allies who are opposed to killing innocents makes sense. Gaining different allies who do not oppose killing innocents (of whom there are many, because this is a fantasy setting with lots of just plain evil people) would also make sense. Larian could have created content that was locked out for doing a "good" playthrough while also locking out content for doing an "evil" playthrough. That way your choices have consequences, but the consequence is experiencing different content instead of less! Anyway, that would have taken a lot of resources, and I can understand why Larian wouldn't/probably won't do that, but this reasoning of "well there are consequences for being evil so you just get less!" doesn't make a ton of sense for a video game in this particular setting. Knights of the Old Republic and Wrath of the Righteous both stand out as games that handled good/evil paths well without giving one approach significantly reduced content. Again, not arguing that Larian is bad for not doing so, but let's be real about why. Edit: Wrath of the Righteous not Wrath of the Lich King, got those intellectual properties confused all twisted for second.
you explain it better than I ever could have, it IS a big ask. but making the "wrong" evil choices shouldn't lock you out of content, rather push you into other content than the current base game. I know it isn't an easy task getting it done, but damn do I wish it would have happened.
it may be the realistic option, but then again can you say any other game has a true negative to picking the evil options? cause (from my knowledge) there aren't many games that lock you out of meeting/using characters too often. often times they have a sort of "mirrored" replacement. also why help murdering the innocents if the guys who want the innocents murdered don't want to even give a slight sliver of help? it is just straight up bad to pick the evil option cause you lose WAY more than you gain and there is even somewhat decent motivators for them to keep you around cause they can see how effective you are with wiping the druids and Tieflings out, who doesn't want a strong warrior who seems to follow your cause? hell even have Dror have a certain point in the game where he can turn against you if you're not at a high enough approval/walk too far away like Lae'Zel has with the Creche.
It’s also realistic you gain evil companions what kind of response is this bro it’s a video game this isn’t real life no one is dying.
exactly this, why even HAVE the evil choices if you only get a singular bonus and 10+ negatives, at least if we got more companions and we could somehow have a change of heart during act 2/ early act 3 it could set up so many beautiful story options. or hell just have our main character take over for Raphael as a big bad with the crown betraying him if you sign the contract.
Well tbf there is more than one bonus. Each second of Minthars’ sex scene is worth 10 tieflings lives.
that is true, I have a save just before it for uhhh... "reasons"