Still, more fleshed out they are definitely not. Now, overall I will say that I like Baldur's Gate II a great bit more than I do Pillars of Eternity, and sure, I do find some characters in the former more to my liking than some others in the latter. He has a philosophy and outlook of his own which he goes into in fair depth when engaging with him in conversation, which in turn also lends us the most comprehensive idea of Rauatai's culture, history and politics found in the game. In Pillars even the likes of Kana, who's in my opinion by far the least fleshed out character in the original roster, is still one with a rich background, an inversion of his own to the "big race" fantasy archetype, and more importantly a character with motivations of his very own who, through his personal sidequest, can find a shift from his initially starry-eyed, optimistic and idealistic person to several of many outcomes that can lead him to adopting a more conservative and isolationist perspective, to a sullen individual with shattered hopes, or a man with more tempered ideals but with a stronger sense of conviction informed by his discovery and the answers presented to his questions. Minsc or Jan Jansen or Keldorn may all have likable personalities, but do they actually grow or develop throughout the journey? Does Minsc ever stop being the one-note (if still funny) quixotic hero who shares his every thought with his pet hamster? Keldorn at most takes the role of some sort of mentor for the young and brash paladin wannabe Anomen, but that hardly presents a change in his character from the "veteran paladin" - not even his brief stint with his family moves his character from this role or else. Whilst there are certainly great moments or memorable qualities to all of the characters in Baldur's Gate II, the ones that actually show an arc or a transformation, or actually show many facets to their personality are few and far between, whilst *every* character in Pillars is made sure to have a well-developed arc and a personal story that connects to the many events pertaining to the story and setting. That's just something I do not see at all, and is rather demonstrably untrue as well. I have no qualms with what you write here, really, since a lot falls down to how we empathize or connect personally with each of these characters, with the exception of the part about the characters in Pillars being less fleshed out than those in Baldur's Gate II.
They exist in a darker setting than BG, I think Deadfire will be a bit more lighthearted and hopefully that means the characters will be easier to like. All the characters have their own unique and for the most part pretty complex personal conflicts though. I can see why you prefer them though, Pillars has an issue where it isn't very accessible and can seem kinda boring. Many are one note characters, a pretty great one note but it doesn't change that. I feel like they were all far more fleshed out than Pillars' companions, though.Īgain, this is just my subjective opinion.Īs people have already said though some of those characters did not have all that much depth. That said, BG2 has it's fair share of boring companions too. Viconia just generally being really hard to please, and a really interesting glimpse into the Drow culture.Minsc, I mean come on, need I say more.Korgan just generally being an ****/badass.Although honestly Edwin is a constant source of amusement. Jan Jansen's constant references to turnips, bloody hilarious.I can't recall anything as interesting as: Eder is pretty cool.Ĭompared to Baldur's Gate 2, the Pillars companions are really bland and uninteresting. I dunno, I can't remember any interesting conversations with her but I guess she's ok.
Grieving Mother was quite interesting, but too distant to really bond with. Kana is too jolly, I feel like I'm partying with a Teletubby when he's around. I don't think the Pillars companions were likeable at all. I mean, this is my subjective opinion, but.
0 kommentar(er)
