If ignorance is bliss you must be literally the happiest being in all of existence. If you were even a touch smarter you’d be embarrassed enough by this exchange you’re losing to delete your comments, but you’re not.
That first paragraph is the most cringe inducing thing I’ve ever read. If you had written guttural sounds and whines you’d have sounded less stupid. Go and learn something you embarrassment.
You don’t think the body count reinforces revenge being bad? With the looks of terror on their faces as Ellie slices their throat, the cries of “Sheila!” or whatever when you blow Sheila or whatever up, the dogs whining at their dead owners’ sides, seems to me that all of this feeds into revenge being bad. You see the cost of those actions too, whole settlement aflame as Ellie hunts down Abby, slaughtering everyone in her way whilst Abby is trying to walk away from it.
You’re a killing machine in that game, but everywhere you go the violence is always extremely messy, upsetting, and visceral, and Ellie has pretty severe reactions to it as well in cutscenes. Both Ellie and Abby even say hateful and petty things under her breath whilst you’re taking them out, hardly presenting them in the best light whilst they’re slaughtering people in their pursuit of revenge. Enemies beg for their life when you grab them, Ellie has to be talked down from murdering a pregnant woman. At one point she tortured, brutally, a woman who looks a bit like Dina. I’m not sure the ludo-narrative dissonance argument applies here, surprisingly, despite basically being Rambo from a gameplay perspective.
Now Uncharted? I love those games, but you destroy legions worth of bad guys, it’s ridiculous, and in a serious narrative Drake’s charming affableness whilst doing it would have to be a cover for a full on psychopath or something. There aren’t many action games, especially shooting, where this argument doesn’t apply really. It’s just somewhere you need to suspend your disbelief. That or only play games where you kill a reasonable amount of people? What would that be? 15? Even that seems high, but 12 hour game a game where you only defeat 15 people isn’t an action game.
Listen if you want to piss away money on transient shit you are welcome to go and do it, but the person missing the nuances here is you. The industry moving towards these models is negatively affecting gaming as a whole and it’ll only get worse, even if you’re too blinded by tacky skins to notice the reason why.
So you’re saying that if Microsoft hadn’t hoovered up another company due to being creatively bankrupt, almost two thousand people would still have a job?
Basically all games have review embargoes. If you’re lucky it’s before release and you get the code even earlier, but there’s almost always a date you can’t publish before.
The issue you’re looking for is not sending code out before release so that there are no reviews at launch, so they get more people buying it blind instead of consulting a bunch of negative reviews and deciding not to.
Oh yeah, you’ve got to go full chaotic evil for the lich. I revived Staunton Vane (it’s been a while now, that’s the dwarf with the tragic backstory who works for evil woman whose name I’ve forgotten I believe) as an undead, I had a few lich only companions who were undead (they don’t talk much though, most of them whine about being controlled if I remember right), my city was dark and almost desolate, filled almost entirely with undead subjects. My councillors, the ones still alive, were a bit terrified and hopeless. By the end my Lich was so good at supporting the undead characters that I started to just go with a full undead party. Poor enemies must’ve been terrified.
It was incredibly macabre and grim, of course, but it was so damn cool.
I think it’s simpler character creation-wise because DND has gotten simpler in the same area, definitely seems much less complex than before.
Wrath is going to be my favourite for a very long time I suspect because of the Lich thing. I’ve always wanted that since playing DND games as a kid and it’s the only game that allowed it. Then it went above and beyond, I could reanimate almost anything, it was great.
Baldur’s Gate 3 is incredibly detailed in combat though, so much so that it takes sometime to wrap your head around it. I’m addition to pushing and jumping, which both sound so simple but have a huge effect on gameplay, there’s also environmental things that you just don’t think of because in other games in the genre it isn’t an option. As an example, there’s a giant spider that wanders around on webs and summons smaller spiders from eggs, you can sneak around to destroy the eggs before combat to stop summoning and destroy the webs whilst the spider is on them to cause it to drop and take extreme damage.
So you’re right that character building may be better in Pathfinder - I really do love casting touch spells through weapons, it’s great - the combat in Baldur’s Gate 3 is far more interactive and dynamic. It’s also way more accessible.
Either is a good choice, but I give the edge to Baldur’s Gate 3 because, well, every single line is voice acted and motion captured, and the freedom you get in the story is astounding. It’s such a profound improvement, a night and day difference from the basically everything else in the genre.