To be fair, the majority of the game hasn't been tested. That wasn't REALLY the purpose of EA. So that seems a bit of an odd argument to make to me, when, what, 80% of the game was still locked away?
I think weekly Dev Diaries like those from Paradox Interactive would really lessen those feeling, since they explain their reasoning behind certain decisions.
Out of Paradox projects ... i have followed only Bloodlines 2.
And i use basicaly everything about it as prime examples of how its NOT supposed to looklike. :-/
I bet you a lukewarm Coke that we never see that game in either of our lifetimes.
Yeah, Paradox is the worst, except for EA.
They bloat everything with endless DLC. Sadly they own White Wolf Publishing so they are the only ones that can license or make a Vampire the Masquerade game.
I really don't understand why they didn't let us try these things. Same for multiclassing as it looks like they are making big changes (according to Nick's word about level 3 spells...).
But well... they did not change shove while there is a clear consensus about it being overpowered... So I'm not sure what the EA was really usefull for. Maybe their data ?
I really don't understand why they didn't let us try these things. Same for multiclassing as it looks like they are making big changes (according to Nick's word about level 3 spells...).
But well... they did not change shove while there is a clear consensus about it being overpowered... So I'm not sure what the EA was really usefull for. Maybe their data ?
I think lots of the most passionate players got bitter throughout the EA exactly because we had a chance to test things through and through... Its a weird mix of conformity and fatigue in the air now. IMO, they don't want a huge chunk of their players to be loaded with these feelings, thats why they are giving us a fresh experience full of unexpected changes. Of course we can tire ourselves out by speculating on the matter, imagining that we were tricked and so on. But in reality, nothing beats the magic of the unknown. This magic is exactly why we sticked with BG3 in the first place. A rough, flawed gem conquered our hearts, not a polished and perfectly balanced game. All the flaws came to light a bit later, when we got satiated and the excitement withered.
In short, because D&D is poorly suited for video games, it's actually possibly the worst tactical combat system used in video games ever. Why?
- you have to rest between spell casts (wtf) - you have to prepare spells (why???) - you are extremely limited in what one character can do in one round (too slow and boring) - health pools and damage numbers are too low which takes away fine grain progression from the game, and they're low because the entire system is designed for a physical dice - in general combat is very slow and clunky
So, what's better? Any turn-based tactical combat that utilises action points, for one: Fallout, Fallout 2, DOS2, Jagged Alliance, Gears Tactics, XCOMs, Mutant Year Zero, Wastelands, and so on. Action Points are the golden standard *in video games*. Because it's the most fun and satisfying.
Now, I do realise that Larian is building a D&D game, which is a huge mistake in the first place, so deviating from D&D looks silly on their part. Because they go against their audience. But for DOS2 fans, BG3 will be a huge disappointment, not just because companions suck, but because of D&D systems. So maybe Larian is trying to not alienate the major part of their audience that comes from DA:O, DOS2 and other non-D&D games, because they realised their mistake, but I think it's about 5 years too late.
I guess people will have to endure D&D *if* the story is truly good *and* combat is smooth enough, but then there's the problem of companions, so I'm not holding my breath. Personal prediction: BG3 will be a bad flop in terms of gameplay hours (not in terms of sales), compared to how overwhelmingly good DOS2 is.
Oh and by the way, my guess is why they're making changes: they've got metrics over how long people that bought early access actually played. Something tells me if those game hours were high, they wouldn't be making these changes. So there you go.
To be fair, the majority of the game hasn't been tested. That wasn't REALLY the purpose of EA. So that seems a bit of an odd argument to make to me, when, what, 80% of the game was still locked away?
Changes to the ruleset and racial attributes don't exactly require the entire game be playable in order to have a meaningful opinion on them, especially since one of them is literally about character creation, the 1st thing you do in the game.
To be fair, the majority of the game hasn't been tested. That wasn't REALLY the purpose of EA. So that seems a bit of an odd argument to make to me, when, what, 80% of the game was still locked away?
Changes to the ruleset and racial attributes don't exactly require the entire game be playable in order to have a meaningful opinion on them, especially since one of them is literally about character creation, the 1st thing you do in the game.
Tbf a lot of balance will depend on how good the race bonuses are on late game weapons.
So I'm not sure what the EA was really usefull for. Maybe their data ?
You got the change to food not healing during combat, which you wanted. I got Halsin as a companion, which I wanted. There were lots of other suggestions that were implemented from EA as well!
More recent changes include adding a keyring, using food from camp storage when resting, and the ability to dye armor. I think a lot of suggestions from EA made it into the game. Not everything everyone wanted of course, but there were a lot of changes from suggestions people made here and other places.
"In short, because D&D is poorly suited for video games, it's actually possibly the worst tactical combat system used in video games ever. Why?"
No, it isn't. In fact, all evidence and success of DnD games disproves your theory. In fact, dnd is BY FAR the most common combat system used in gaming history. Hmmm... Interesting.
"- you have to rest between spell casts (wtf)
One of the best aprts of dnd, and why it tends to better than others. OMG Mana crap. OMG
"- you have to prepare spells (why???)"
As above.
"- you are extremely limited in what one character can do in one round (too slow and boring)"
Kidding right?
"- health pools and damage numbers are too low which takes away fine grain progression from the game, and they're low because the entire system is designed for a physical dice"
Yeah, because having 10,000HP is so much better. NOT.
> dnd is BY FAR the most common combat system used in gaming history.
Nope, it's too complex to be fit for mass entertainment. And too slow and less fun than alternative systems.
But let's try this: if it's the most successful system BY FAR as you say in gaming history, why do so many successful games deviate from dnd? Why Larian does? I guess all these game studios and publishers just want to lose money, because they're losing so many customers, right?
In short, because D&D is poorly suited for video games, it's actually possibly the worst tactical combat system used in video games ever. Why?
- you have to rest between spell casts (wtf) - you have to prepare spells (why???) - you are extremely limited in what one character can do in one round (too slow and boring) - health pools and damage numbers are too low which takes away fine grain progression from the game, and they're low because the entire system is designed for a physical dice - in general combat is very slow and clunky
So, what's better? Any turn-based tactical combat that utilises action points, for one: Fallout, Fallout 2, DOS2, Jagged Alliance, Gears Tactics, XCOMs, Mutant Year Zero, Wastelands, and so on. Action Points are the golden standard *in video games*. Because it's the most fun and satisfying.
Now, I do realise that Larian is building a D&D game, which is a huge mistake in the first place, so deviating from D&D looks silly on their part. Because they go against their audience. But for DOS2 fans, BG3 will be a huge disappointment, not just because companions suck, but because of D&D systems. So maybe Larian is trying to not alienate the major part of their audience that comes from DA:O, DOS2 and other non-D&D games, because they realised their mistake, but I think it's about 5 years too late.
I guess people will have to endure D&D *if* the story is truly good *and* combat is smooth enough, but then there's the problem of companions, so I'm not holding my breath. Personal prediction: BG3 will be a bad flop in terms of gameplay hours (not in terms of sales), compared to how overwhelmingly good DOS2 is.
Oh and by the way, my guess is why they're making changes: they've got metrics over how long people that bought early access actually played. Something tells me if those game hours were high, they wouldn't be making these changes. So there you go.
Oh god, I never agreed and disagreed so much with a post at the same time.
For start, what do I agree with? Translating a PnP game to a videogame is a recipe for clunckiness. You can obtain good results if you ignore the source material enough, but it's like translating a book to a movie. Sometimes you obtain a great movie, sometimes it just don't work. These system takes full consideration of the presence of a GM, and without it the system crumble. That's also why the Lawyer GM that follows RAW like a religion is not a good GM in my opinion, but that's me.
What I don't agree with? D&D being poorly suited for videogames. Ironically, despite being a PnP game, D&D is among the most videogamey ttrpg I know, and it can be translated pretty much RAW, rule by rule. If I think about dogs in the vineyard or any powered by the apocalypse it would become impossible to translate them.
Things that don't matter? Pretty much anything else. Vancian system, action economy, health. All these things are just preferences and have nothing to do with the videogame environment. The only thing that matters is just the resting system, that honestly it's hard to manage without a sentient GM.
Pathfinder, aka D&D3.75, is even more complex (and convoluted, but I love it) than D&D5th and that works pretty darn well in Pathfinder WoTr...which has both realtime with pause combat AND turn base.
Last edited by Count Turnipsome; 22/07/2310:11 PM.
It just reminded me of the bowl of goat's milk that old Winthrop used to put outside his door every evening for the dust demons. He said the dust demons could never resist goat's milk, and that they would always drink themselves into a stupor and then be too tired to enter his room..
In short, because D&D is poorly suited for video games, it's actually possibly the worst tactical combat system used in video games ever. Why?
- you have to rest between spell casts (wtf) - you have to prepare spells (why???) - you are extremely limited in what one character can do in one round (too slow and boring) - health pools and damage numbers are too low which takes away fine grain progression from the game, and they're low because the entire system is designed for a physical dice - in general combat is very slow and clunky
Yep, thats because its not *just* a tactical system, it's also a logistical system. It's a few layered systems really, but I won't get into all those.
It's important to understand that D&D provides a lot of different ways to play it - all those systems you mentioned are one dimensional - which is fine but also limiting.
Some people like to play D&D adventurers like a survival horror or escape horror, with slight modifications.
As you can see, DnD games are not "by far" more liked or more popular. They aren't even in the top. And the only modern one - Pathfinder - doesn't even get into the top half of the list.
If you know more pure(-ish) dnd games, throw the titles at me, I'll add to the list. Maybe I'm just missing a critical title or two I'm not aware of. Nevertheless, my preliminary conclusion is that D&D fans tend to live in a bubble and an echo chamber, with all the bias that brings. Including, by the way, people working at Larian Studios - they are clearly D&D fans, and I think they got carried away, or maybe it was a conscious gamble.
Edit: added BG3 early access, corrected for original release years
As you can see, DnD games are not "by far" more liked or more popular. They aren't even in the top. And the only modern one - Pathfinder - doesn't even get into the top half of the list.
If you know more pure(-ish) dnd games, throw the titles at me, I'll add to the list. Maybe I'm just missing a critical title or two I'm not aware of. Nevertheless, my preliminary conclusion is that D&D fans tend to live in a bubble and an echo chamber, with all the bias that brings. Including, by the way, people working at Larian Studios - they are clearly D&D fans, and I think they got carried away, or maybe it was a conscious gamble.
