|
|
|
veteran
|
veteran
Joined: Feb 2020
|
All in one except in camps^^
You haven't read books in which magical portals lead you where you want to go imo. On top of that, you don't even have to be close to them to fast travel (hopefully) so it is not even portals except for 30 seconds when you hear Gale's "story".
It is just useless visual landmark that suggest teleportation all over the place.
Last edited by Maximuuus; 30/10/23 11:28 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Jun 2020
|
Given that they wanted it to be an always available travel system, they didn't really need to try to legitimise it in world with a visual system, immersion-breaking or otherwise. They could, very simply, have left it at "When you approach certain areas, they are marked as locations of note. Later, you can open your map and select them, and your party will travel there from wherever they are." If they gave no "in universe" explanation at all, people would likely just assume expedited foot travel that the player view skips over for the sake of ease, and there would be no complaints of lore-breaking. Sometimes less is legitimately more. (They could still have had Gale emerging from a portal and needing a hand, if that's important to the game story elements, it didn't need to interact with the swift travel system)
|
|
|
|
|
|
stranger
|
|
stranger
Joined: Jan 2023
|
You and several others start out as captives on a ship, which is suddenly intercepted by powerful beings that cause the ship to crash after passing through multiple planes of existence. You are rescued from death by a magical being and wake up on a beach, where you meet other people who survived the wreck and who you can recruit into your party. You must also reckon with the newfound fact that you (and your fellow shipmates and survivors) have something inside you that you don’t understand and which may grant you mysterious powers…
I just described the opening sequence to both DOS2 and BG3. Both games start you out at low-level but have bombastic, explosive openings that set the tone right away. Meanwhile, the original BG series starts off quietly and shrouded in mystery.
This is one of many ways why BG3 feels much closer to Larian’s previous games, especially DOS2, than the original BG games. This doesn't make BG3 a bad game - but it does make it a poor sequel in my eyes.
Here are some other reasons:
Combat: I don't want to repeat the huge megathread on RTwP vs. turn-based combat and I am not saying which is "better" than the other. But it's undeniable this choice has far-reaching consequences such as the pacing and strategy of each individual combat, handling AI aggro, and the number of trash mobs, enemies, and overall fights in the game. BG1/2 was an early pioneer RTwP, which was critically acclaimed at the time and is one of the reasons why BG is credited with revitalizing the computer RPG genre, so not continuing the iconic RTwP system certainly makes this less of a BG-feeling game.
Approach to adapting D&D: Larian seemed to explicitly try to replicate the tabletop with BG3, by keeping the combat turn-based but also going so far as to literally show animations of dice rolls on screen when you make a check like it's a pen-and-paper session. In numerous interviews, they spoke about the original BG games interchangeably with being a D&D video game adaption. If you ask me they always missed that (a) BG1/2 was never about replicating the tabeltop experience and (b) the D&D ruleset was never what defined the original BG games and made them so memorable in the first place.
Map Design: DOS2 and BG3 use what’s known as a “theme park” map design - maps that contain many villages/forests/points of interest tightly packed so even “distant” locations are right next to each other. The original BG approach has always been to have individual maps for each place, preserving adventure scale and immersion over gameplay convenience. This was more streamlined in BG2 compared to the expansive forests and mostly empty maps of BG1, but the avoidance of a dense theme park map still stands.
Day/Night Cycle: BG1 and BG2 had a day/night cycle more than 20 years ago yet it is completely absent from BG3 (and DOS2). This didn't just effect immersion in terms of the passing of time, but it also affected some NPC schedules/merchant availability/quests.
Elemental Surfaces and Barrels: A pretty infamous element of DOS2 and a Larian invention that was brought over to BG3. To be fair, player complaints in EA resuled in these being significantly toned down, but this is still a unique element of DOS2 that no other games have except for BG3.
UI: The exact same font from DOS2 is in BG3. DOS2 and BG3 have very clean UI, while BG1/2 UI was specifically made to look rough, like you were using an adventurer’s journal with worn parchment and hand-drawn images.
Companions: A hallmark of BG2 was the enormous diversity (and quality) of recruitable companions. There were 16 possible companions and you could have up to 6 people in your party, resulting in a huge number of possible party combinations. Enormous amounts of banter and interactions that depended on specific party comps made them feel real, and even 20 years later I’m still hearing banter I have never heard before. DOS2 and BG3 have far fewer possible companions (5 and 10, respectively, even fewer when you consider that recruiting some companions completely lock you from others), significantly less intra-party banter, and only allow a 4-person party, which reduces party diversity compared to BG1/2.
Origin Characters: The concept of “origin characters”, where your protagonist can be a character that is otherwise recruitable in another playthrough (e.g. Astarion, Lae'zel, Gale, etc), is a Larian exclusive that they first introduced in DOS2. Aside from only further adding to the DOS2 feel, I don’t think that concept of origin characters are a good fit for a Baldur’s Gate game. BG1/2 is a focused story of a specific character from Candlekeep, Gorion’s ward and the Bhaalspawn destined to determine the fate of Bhaal’s essence. Even if BG3 is about someone new, Origin characters make the game feel less like a specific person’s story.
Lore and BG1/2 story continuation: This is partially on WOTC for retconning canon but also on Larian for adopting that canon (they ignore canon in some places, such as the fate of Jaheira, so clearly they weren't totally beholden to it). Plot points established in Throne of Bhaal are directly contradicted in BG3, and the treatment of Viconia and Sarevok was really disappointing.
So what would have made this game feel more like a BG sequel to me? UI that evoked the originals, using the weathered stone palette and hand-drawn parchment instead of the very clean style. Specific, immersive maps with towns that feel large and lived in and the passage of the time that feels realistic. The RTwP style of combat (or at least the option for it). No origin characters, in favour of many more recruitable companions. More respect for the lore established by Baldur’s Gate 1 and 2, especially in the treatment of returning characters.
|
|
|
|
|
|
addict
|
|
addict
Joined: Dec 2022
|
You are coming across as confrontational, fractious, and more than a little bit facetious, Dex. If it's not your intention to come cross that way, then please understand that that is how the tone of your posting reads. You 'sound' as though you are spoiling for a fight and wanting other people to 'come at you'. Again, if that's not what you're trying to do, then it might be best if you take some extra time to check your posts and vet them for tone before you post them - I have to do this quite often, and usually give my posts three or four passes until their language is acceptable. Even then, I sometimes come across too harsh. The difference is I'm trying to show you how foolish your list are. It's a sarcasm. Which you know and yet you think I'm serious, that I'm doing "exactly that". What you're demonstrating is that you did not read or engage with what I said, and that you're still not doing so. You come across as fishing for an argument which I'm not interested in having with you. Yes; you do sound rude. Yes; you're using confrontational language and baiting terms in this thread. No; I'm not interested. Here's the point of my original post: You said: Because literally everything else outside the Story is objectively worse than BG3. You claimed that literally Everything outside of the subjective story element, was Objectively better in BG3. That is what you said. There's no “I was only talking about this specific thing when I said that” - you said it bluntly as a universal. Max responded asking you not to claim something so obviously false and silly, presumably because he, like others here, find that it undermines anything else of value you might have to contribute: Don't say "objectively" when you are giving your own opinion...
No, everything else is not worse in BG2. You responded by doubling down on your assertion: I am sorry because I'm gonna say exactly that. BG1/2 is objectively worse than BG3 on everything else except for story which are highly subjective. You repeated, with no qualification and as an absolute universal, that BG1 and 2 are objectively worse in every way, and by every metric of comparison, except subjective story-related ones. You claimed this was an objective truth, external to anyone's subjective opinion. That is what you said, and reiterated; no hedging, qualifying or side-stepping, you were very clear. Everyone here knows that this statement is ridiculous, but more importantly, that it is Objectively False. Everyone talking here knows that it's a rather silly thing to assert, and will just make you look like you're not interested in having a serious conversation, moreso for trying to defend it after the fact. It takes away from the weight or value of anything else you might say or any other way you might contribute to the discussion, because it is so silly a claim to try to assert; maybe it's sarcastic hyperbole - and presumably it is - because I don't think anyone here thinks you're that stupid; I certainly don't... but the point being made to you is that using hyperbole like that throws a lot of shade on your own legitimacy in the conversation, and actively undermines the chances of anything else you have to say being taken seriously - or even read at all, by some folks. That is all I dropped in to say. Don't do that; it detracts from your ability to get your point across or to be taken seriously by others. What I was trying to do is to stop "abstract" assertion that "BG2 wuz better" by asking -specifically- what is it that make you think that, and ideally, admit that it's just rose-tinted biased opinion, which I believe it actually is. By all means do that – but don't do it by using nonsense hyperbole that makes you look the fool and detracts from the value of anything else you might say. For the record: You also may have missed the point where I said I was not forwarding my own opinion on the matter at all (which I have at no point given on this topic), just illustrating an issue in your comment using the examples that others had already talked about in the thread. Let's talk *specifically*.... No. That is not and was not in any way related to the point I was asking you to consider in respect to your discussion habits. Challenge away; this isn't a fight or an argument, and I'm not interested in your apparent desire to make it one. I'm only offering some advice to you, that you are free to take or leave as you see fit. I can't offer it any more clearly than this, so that is the end of this tangent as far as I'm concerned. Outside of that, I will say that the things most recently brought up for specific discussion on are all, every one of them, subjective matters. The claim that having your character ability scores affect your dialogue options, and having dialogue checks rolled for conversation options is 'better' than if those things were not being present is, itself, a subjective opinion; Dex may 'prove' all they like; there are others who feel that your character scores should not determine what you can or cannot say in roleplay, and that certain things should not require checks at all - that requiring checks is actually a hindrance to character play, and that having in-your-face dice rolls across the screen in the middle of conversations is immersion-breaking and ultimately bad for investment in the story and immersion in scenes. One may attempt to 'prove' all they like – any opinion that any of that makes one game superior over another is subjective. Hiya.
I used to have "not an english native speaker" on my signature but it seems to be demeaning to myself so I ditch it.
Thank you for summarizing the point I made and I totally get where you came from and for that: I apologize to you.
However there are things I have to made clear regarding some of the point listed:
1. Yes, I claimed "Everything else" except the subjective story elements is objectively better in BG3 than BG2. I am willing to debate whether this factual or not, but the thing is, no one has given me a point that prove BG2 are better in [insert aspect here] than BG3, instead, I've been given repeatedly the same point: "I don't like [insert aspect] from BG3". The other person is not trying to prove he is right, he is trying to prove I'm wrong. There is a difference.
What I meant by being specific is the topic. You can talk about literally everything, but not an abstract thing like "I like BG2 better", but "I like the random encounter design in BG2 better than it is in BG3", then we will have a starting point to prove they're right.
Let's use the analogy to make it more clearer, just in case I fudged my english somewhere: Imagine two people conversing with each other, one wears pants, other wears joggers. The joggers complain that the pants worn by the other guy looks bad, he doesn't explain why except, "it just bad and not what nature intended". In a good "debate" the pants wearer can defend why his pants is good with supporting arguments including but not limited to: the jogger's pants, which he is not wearing, nor telling us what is his preference. An argument such as this cannot move forward and can only devolved into unhealthy argument, or in my case devolved too "I like BG2 story more".
What I was originally expecting was, somebody would explain why having, say, Random encounter (an example) - like it was in BG2 was better in comparison to everything handcrafted like it is in BG3. I can argue that handcrafted encounter means each encounter has purposes and likely better designed with multiple solution other than "kill the enemy", the other guy can argue that random encounter means character build, especially combat ones, always relevant, not only in certain part of the game, your character will always be "tested" by random encounters, which only can enhance your Roleplay experience.
Instead what I get is: "read the book".
I am in my late 20s and the country I lived in only that exists less than 100 years old. Dungeon & Dragons was never part of the zeitgeist, Gold Box games, early Infinity engine games? How do I know? Computer only becoming mainstream within this 2 decades. (Though I play it.. in 2010s) ---- the thing is: I do not need to explain this to the other person I engage with, he presume everyone has some set of knowledge and an Universal point of view in how we perceive media.
He implies that everyone would share the same opinion as he is if they read every single media, because only then, I would understand it. Isn't that sound condescending? While complaining about miniscule, non-life threatening mechanics which is: You are able to throw a vial of liquid in the world of Baldur's Gate 3. Because in a game that trying to simulate DnD/TTRPG experience, player wanting to do something out of the box cannot possibly happen.
You'd notice I didn't mention other of his, "complains", because he didn't even trying to prove he is right. He just want to complain. At least that is how I perceive it.
2. Why did I claim "everything else" is better in BG3? - to challenge the "Abstract" assertion people like to parroting in this forum. This is not my first time. I don't think BG3 is a magnum opus of an RPG (it's Disco Elysium), but some of forum members like to assert that this game is mere between "7" or "I'd rather die than play it". I am sick of this assertion of bad faith actor such as these because I would prefer honest conversation: What would you prefer then? --- which has never been answered. And the funny thing had the table flipped and their favorite game confronted with the same logic he used, he would at least struggle to answer it.
That is why I challenge people to argue openly about it. To show how warped their own thinking is! - Does this mean only I have unwarped opinion, objectively fact based and fact checked? Absolutely not, I am absolutely biased. The difference is I am *aware* that I am biased, people are not, this person are likely not. He is neck deep on his own warped delusion that he cannot see other version of point of view to be relevant. I almost pity them.
3. Why I don't respond to your argument specifically? To be honest I didn't take your post seriously since you wrote "BG2 has more spells than BG3, ergo BG3 better". I think it's a joke. A good joke, perhaps. I don't get it.
ps. why the hyperbole?
Because I (think) I'm replying to hyperbolic assertion, a 8-10/10 general consensus game, somehow bad, sayeth some pompous person on the forum. I think I obliged to deal the same hyperbolic language which such person.
Last edited by Dext. Paladin; 31/10/23 09:11 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
addict
|
|
addict
Joined: Oct 2020
|
Maybe the lack of day/night cycle is the result of the choice to enable the party to split up and do things in different parts of the world. I seem to remember Larian touting this as a great feature when EA came out. I don't think it is used much though. Some partymembers exploring thje goblin camp while others are in the grove, for instance. Anyway, adding continuous time to this feature would make synchronization of the separate groups quite problematic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Jun 2020
|
Thanks for the acknowledgement. I'll respond quickly here, to Dex, but since we're getting a bit off track, it may be better to move the minutia here to a PM; this is now more about style and perspective than about the core of the discussion. I'll take the language element under consideration here - to be honest, until you mentioned it, I had not supposed that you might be less confident in English, so you're doing as well as any and better than some ^.^ I'll make some short, likely blunt responses to a few things here - please don't take them as rude or abrupt; the intention is just that they be simple and clear responses, to remove confusion or misunderstanding where possible. For example, I may quote you like this and respond with a flat, simple answer: == Why I don't respond to your argument specifically? To be honest I didn't take your post seriously since you wrote "BG2 has more spells than BG3, ergo BG3 better". I did not ask you to respond to me, and I did not say that. I said that on the metric of the number of spell choices available, BG3 was lesser than its predecessors, who had more. That is not a statement of one game being better than the other; it is a statement of one particular objectively factual metric by BG3 is not objectively superior. That is all. == Short quotes like that are not intended to be argumentative, just clarifying and corrective. With that in mind... 1. Yes, I claimed "Everything else" except the subjective story elements is objectively better in BG3 than BG2. I am willing to debate whether this factual or not, but the thing is, no one has given me a point that prove BG2 are better in [insert aspect here] than BG3 There is no debate to be had here; it's factually false. From my perspective, you have been given very clear comparison points wherein one is superior or inferior to the other, but you have dismissed them, and continued to say that no-one is giving you any; that is how it looks from my perspective of your posts. When you say that something is 'objectively' better than another thing, you generally need to qualify which metrics of comparison you're using to define that, and it needs to be something that can be put on a non-subjective scale. If it can't be, then we can't make a claim of objectivity from the beginning. So, when someone says that a game is objectively better than another in every way except the subjective, we know that that is a hyperbolic statement, and is factually untrue - we know this automatically, and without any need for conversation, because all we need to do to prove that it is untrue, is list one element by which we can objectively compare the two games, on an objective scale, where the other exceeds the first. It's very easy to do, but disproving a hyperbolic flasehood is also largely without meaning or purpose (which I think is what you tried to point out when it was done), except to convince the speaker to be more reasonable and back off from using hyperbole if they wish to discuss things in a sensible way. This was done, specifically to convince you to back off from the silly hyperbole of your statement, and come back to sensible discussion - it was done with simple metrics that could be used to disprove the silly statement easily. "On the metric of the number of spells the game has; the metric being that more spell choice is better than less, the earlier game is objectively superior (has more) to the newer (has less)" It's simply true... but the objective metric itself is largely without meaning unless we begin ascribing subjective elements of preference to it. That's something we can discuss, but we cannot claim objective truth once we begin to do so. "I like the random encounter design in BG2 better than it is in BG3", then we will have a starting point to prove they're right. there are lots of threads, all over this forum, of people nit-picking in quite advanced analytical detail about elements of BG3, with in-depth breakdowns of them, as why they find them to be unsatisfying compared to the parallels that have existed in the industry and been advanced and improved on by other contemporary, or even older, games. They're in many places - mostly in feedback and general, but also in the story, build and character sections. I feel as though many of the folks talking in this thread are assuming the knowledge of and understanding of many of those long, on-going discussions, and the depths to which they have been pulled apart in detail. I don't feel that anyone has, however, insisted that you should have consumed every piece of available media before you can participate in the conversation - no-one has said or even implied that, and I'd point out again that your accusation of this, towards others, is more hyperbole that only undermines what you are trying to say. Trying to paint what someone else has said as being far more extreme and ridiculous than they wrote it doesn't help your case, it just makes you look dishonest and as though you're fishing for a fight. MY best advice would be to try to avoid doing that; look at what people have actually said, and work with that - the more you inflate what others say in order to make their position look more monstrous for you to fight against, the less seriously other people will take You. I don't think BG3 is a magnum opus of an RPG (it's Disco Elysium), but some of forum members like to assert that this game is mere between "7" or "I'd rather die than play it". I am sick of this assertion of bad faith actor such as these because I would prefer honest conversation: What would you prefer then? --- which has never been answered. I would maybe give BG3 a solid 6/10, with my experiences so far, but I've not played all the way to the ending yet. I've made many threads and detailed discussions about the various elements of the game that I find lacking, flawed, dissatisfying or poorly handled, across the breadth of things from characterisation, visual design, cinematography, system implementation, map design, quest design, code flagging, UI design, UI interaction, and a host of other elements as well. I've participated in many conversations about these elements and discussed them, along with detailed discussions of what I feel would work better, or why I feel certain things don't work. I don't like to say "this would be better" - because I'm not the designer and I can't speak for everyone, but I will explain strongly why I don't think various things work well, or that I find frustrating, invasive or dissatisfying, and give instances of similar elements that worked better in other games, from my perspective. What I don't have is the energy or time to repeat them all to you personally now... and I'm sorry for that, but I simply don't. the threads are there if you want to read discussions about these topics, however. If you feel like no-one has ever given these answers or gone into depth on them, and you'd like to see those discussions, just dig around the forums here and lurk a little; they're here, and often conducted with great deal more depth and thoughtful analysis than you'll find in most other game communities... we have, over the years, tried very hard to keep things civil, positive and constructive here. We try to discourage argument and encourage discussion. So... He is neck deep on his own warped delusion that he cannot see other version of point of view to be relevant. I almost pity them. Here, language like this is the sort of language and behaviour that will put you on the wrong side of the moderation, and could get you cautioned to behave better. It's not necessary to talk about other posters like that, and there is never a justification for answering poor behaviour with more poor behaviour in turn. As I mentioned, this is a conversation more about perspective and how we approach discussions, and is a bit off topic the more we go into it. If you'd like to continue talking about this, we should probably move it to a PM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
addict
|
|
addict
Joined: Jan 2021
|
Maybe the lack of day/night cycle is the result of the choice to enable the party to split up and do things in different parts of the world. I seem to remember Larian touting this as a great feature when EA came out. I don't think it is used much though. Some partymembers exploring thje goblin camp while others are in the grove, for instance. Anyway, adding continuous time to this feature would make synchronization of the separate groups quite problematic. Honestly, I expect that a lot of BG III's shortcomings are the result of their approach to multiplayer. ex1: not freezing gameplay for other players when one is in dialogue naturally leads to the mechanic where you can switch characters and screw around/pickpocket/set up an enemy boss for a 1-turn kill while they are stuck in dialogue. (something Larian has embraced as a 'feature) ex2: the way combat works in a turn based bubble while the rest of he world is still real-time (which leads to all sorts of jank when additional enemies wander into combat (or anything involving stealth, really). which inevitably results in the initiative mechanics screwing you over and losing turns on half your party. Additionally, the hyper-condensed 'themepark' maps make a lot more sense if you consider how their multiplayer works with the split parties. They want everyone on as few maps as possible.
|
|
|
|
|
|
member
|
|
member
Joined: Jan 2024
|
A lot of this reads like nostalgia mixed with "It's not like BG1 enough so I don't like it". While also not knowing about how much D&D has evolved in 20 years. Usually an elf was the most exotic or strange party member who would garner attention from local villagers or farmers as they had never actually seen one in person before. If there were any Tiefling or Drow with us they would surely have worn a disguise to avoid drawing too much attention to themselves. Slaying an ogre or band of orcs was quite the accomplishment for a group of eager level 2 adventurers, enough to earn a reward from the local mayor and a reputation in the area. Finding a cache of magical items was quite rare and scrolls or potions were valuable assets to be used carefully. Eventually something would happen to thrust the party into the seat of danger and a plot would unfold which would lead to intrigue, greatness and powerful enemies. Back then, like in the original Baldur's Gate 1, our story began similarly to Gorion's Ward, a novice set off into the unknown on an adventure with their childhood companion Imoen. Can you imagine how boring characters like Imoen, Jaheira or Khalid would seem compared to those in "Baldur's Gate 3"? Most of these changes occurred in the D&D 3.0-onwards era. Races being less exotic was a big aspect of 3.0. Baldur's Gate 1 was a notably very subversive rpg for it's era because the game wasn't a save the world story. It doesn't get into earth shattering stakes until right up to its last dungeon. However BG2 was the opposite it was world shattering stakes from beginning to end. The player's reveal to be the child of a god in the previous game is constantly reinforced in both it and Throne of Bhaal. To say that D&D at the time was always low stakes is incorrect. BG1 was more akin to a low level adventure and BG2 is akin to a high level adventure. BG3 has a mix of the two depending on which act it is. In contrast, BG3 feels like some Michael Bay, Guardians of the Galaxy fever dream with flying ships and planar races being the new normal, throwing away the entire vibe set by the first 2 games. I really don't see it. BG2's first dungeon even features dryads and once you get to Athkatla you start seeing very fantastical things very often. It really feels like nostalgia talking. BG3 has the player fighting Beholders in the Underdark as early as level 2-3! It feels like someone who only just heard of Forgotten Realms wanted to take all the most over the top content and cram it all into the first chapter. It's not a Beholder it's a Spectator. A lesser beholder. They existed as far back as D&D 1.0. https://forgottenrealms.fandom.com/wiki/SpectatorBy the time our characters set foot in a normal town or village (which currently doesn't even exist in Early Access) they will likely be in the double digit levels and have an entire troupe traveling in their camp. A camp which may consist (thus far) of a Lich, owlbear cub, The legendary Volo, a vampire, a gith, a druid, several magical humans and a dog. It makes deciding whether to spend extra gold for a nice room at the Friendly Arm Inn seem like an entirely different setting. There's a lot of comparisons to BG1 for some reason and not BG2 where the player played as the spawn of the God of murder and could recruit characters like Aerie who was a rare winged elf. Astarion isn't a full vampire he's a vampire spawn, Lae'zel being in the story is explained by the Astral Prism being owned by the Githyanki originally. Volo isn't a permanent companion he's essentially a weirdo that reappears periodically throughout the story. In terms of tone BG3 isn't attempting to mimic BG1 and it's disappointing this person just wants it to copy the original instead of doing something new. All of this leads to nothing in the current game feeling special or particularly noteworthy.
In the first BG1 game, our character discovered they are a descendant of the God of Murder much to their surprise as their life thus far has been relatively quiet and normal. They then slowly begin to manifest abilities and unravel the meaning of their lineage while being joined by an interesting cast of adventurers whose backgrounds never truly outshine that of the main character. All of this occurs while exploring the relatively quiet, pastoral wilderness of the Sword Coast.
In BG3 on the other hand, after our player crawls from the bowels of a gigantic nautiloid dimensional spaceship which is fighting dragon riding astral lizard people whom all escaped from the nine hells only to be marooned amidst a lost caravan of demon-folk battling a horde of magically enthralled goblins it is hard to imagine anything really standing out as unusual or particularly noteworthy. We are immediately joined by a wizard who has shacking up with the goddess Mystra herself and has now become a direct conduit for the weave, able to siphon seemingly infinite amounts of magic into himself. Yet he is somehow just probably the most mundane of our possible companions, all of whom have some absurdly complex story for level 1 characters. It is like every party member is competing to see who is the most special, edgy character that can subvert expectations, and this is all explained by the fact their minds were altered by psychic squid people but then further manipulated by an unknown magical entity known only as "The Absolute". Does anyone remember the Baldur's Gate games where you could recruit companions like the the ranger Kivan, a simple elf whose entire backstory was as complicated as revenge against a local bandit leader? Starting an RPG with high stakes and fantastical locations is nothing new even in the old Infinity Engine era. See: Planescape Torment. The entire premise of BG3 in this regard is absurd. Githyanki and Tieflings are more common than Humans or Elves in the current game. The Githyanki being part of the story is due to Vlaakith being the owner of the Astral Prism. This is why they attacked the Nauteloid. Tieflings being common in Forgotten Realms is a 3.5-ish era update. It's been a thing for at least 20 years. I was genuinely surprised when the player meets Mayrina's brothers in the swamp, who are two of the only non-magical, normal humans in the entire game thus far. This does not parallel BG1 & 2, both of which were centric around fairly mundane cities and towns. Athkatla was not mundane. Nor was Baldur's Gate. The entire reason you go to Baldur's Gate is to defeat a Bhaal cult that has created a temple under it. Only Beregost and Nashkel in BG1 were mundane. They were also entirely optional locations the player doesn't need to visit. BG1 straight up went with the initial setting being a very quiet human castle/monastery of Candlekeep. BG2 got a little more exotic with the metropolitan city of Amn where magic was powerful just beneath the surface but it was still mostly grounded in traditional medieval fantasy. The player begins in BG2 kidnapped by an evil wizard who wants to take his godhood for himself and evolve into a godlike being that wants to kill everything. And the story eventually progresses to war between other Godlike beings so they can become the last one like in Highlander. It's not "traditional medieval fantasy". Forgotten Realms has always been very high fantasy in terms of tone. Part of the charm of Baldur's Gate 1 and 2 was interacting with townsfolk and playing the typical medieval hero (or villain). Hearing quips like "You tell 'em Marl" from drunken country bumpkins or deciding the quality of room you could afford at the local inn, created a backdrop of a living, believable and relatable world amidst the fantastic magical elements. Somehow BG3 seems more on par with the setting of Planescape or Throne of Bhaal which we didn't reach until level 18-20. This is more tone which stems from seemingly wanting the sequel to just be a copy of the original. Which I'm glad the developers didn't do as it allows the game to stand out considerably more. BG1 is also a divisive game as people are generally split on if they actually like how minimalistic it was in terms of storytelling. My character in BG3 has more potions, scrolls and magical items then I know what to do with. All of my party's gear slots are enchanted. Half the battles can be won by shoving the enemy off a cliff. Burning, acid or wet surfaces are such an important combat feature while game mechanics like alignment or reputation are ignored. Gone are character portraits. Gone are AI packages, formations, and 6 member parties. I played Divinity Original Sin 1 and 2 and enjoyed both but neither felt like Forgotten Realms, neither felt like D&D... This is, something else. Divinity Original Sin 3 maybe. Baldur's Gate 3, definitely not. Character portraits were something Baldur's Gate 1 had because of limitations due to sprites. Bioware notably got rid of them later in all of their rpgs after NWN1. They weren't a necessary part of the rpg experience. Neither were AI packages, formations or 6 member parties. D&D based rpgs ranged in terms of party size, such as NWN1 limiting you to only two people in your party at once. It was up to the developer how they wanted to balance the game. This person really has a skewed perception of what the original two games were while also demanding that the sequel be just a remake of BG1. You and several others start out as captives on a ship, which is suddenly intercepted by powerful beings that cause the ship to crash after passing through multiple planes of existence. You are rescued from death by a magical being and wake up on a beach, where you meet other people who survived the wreck and who you can recruit into your party. You must also reckon with the newfound fact that you (and your fellow shipmates and survivors) have something inside you that you don’t understand and which may grant you mysterious powers…
I just described the opening sequence to both DOS2 and BG3. Both games start you out at low-level but have bombastic, explosive openings that set the tone right away. Meanwhile, the original BG series starts off quietly and shrouded in mystery. BG1 was a subversive rpg for its era because it didn't have world shattering stakes. However this was because it was a low level adventure. While that's a valuable experience I don't see why every subsequent game should copy it's tone exactly. BG2 didn't. Additionally BG1 is endlessly criticized by people for having too little story. This is one of many ways why BG3 feels much closer to Larian’s previous games, especially DOS2, than the original BG games. This doesn't make BG3 a bad game - but it does make it a poor sequel in my eyes. Not really sure why one game having a similar opening to another makes it a bad sequel. It's like saying the fact the game has a party camp like Dragon Age Origins makes it a bad sequel. Combat: I don't want to repeat the huge megathread on RTwP vs. turn-based combat and I am not saying which is "better" than the other. But it's undeniable this choice has far-reaching consequences such as the pacing and strategy of each individual combat, handling AI aggro, and the number of trash mobs, enemies, and overall fights in the game. BG1/2 was an early pioneer RTwP, which was critically acclaimed at the time and is one of the reasons why BG is credited with revitalizing the computer RPG genre, so not continuing the iconic RTwP system certainly makes this less of a BG-feeling game. The main reason Real Time with Pause exists is because real time rpgs were blowing up at the time. The lead developer of Fallout stated that Interplay demanded that Fallout 1 be real time because of Diablo. It was only by saying it would delay the game by 6 months that it wasn't. Baldur's Gate being real time with pause was almost certainly because of that. Real time with pause wasn't even a system that is familiar to Dungeons and Dragons which is a game that exclusively operates based on turns governed through initiative. The game being more faithful to the tabletop is a problem why? Approach to adapting D&D: Larian seemed to explicitly try to replicate the tabletop with BG3, by keeping the combat turn-based but also going so far as to literally show animations of dice rolls on screen when you make a check like it's a pen-and-paper session. In numerous interviews, they spoke about the original BG games interchangeably with being a D&D video game adaption. If you ask me they always missed that (a) BG1/2 was never about replicating the tabeltop experience and (b) the D&D ruleset was never what defined the original BG games and made them so memorable in the first place. As above real time with pause was specifically because of Diablo. It's also extremely debatable if real time with pause is what made Baldur's Gate successful as most people generally talk about things like the storytelling and level of freedom the game gives you. Things BG3 mimics. Map Design: DOS2 and BG3 use what’s known as a “theme park” map design - maps that contain many villages/forests/points of interest tightly packed so even “distant” locations are right next to each other. The original BG approach has always been to have individual maps for each place, preserving adventure scale and immersion over gameplay convenience. This was more streamlined in BG2 compared to the expansive forests and mostly empty maps of BG1, but the avoidance of a dense theme park map still stands. Why does a sequel need to strictly copy the original's to the extent that the levels be laid out identically? This isn't a standard set by rpg sequels even at the time. Ultima Underworld was a dungeon crawler that didn't feature any towns for example but nobody says it isn't an Ultima game. Day/Night Cycle: BG1 and BG2 had a day/night cycle more than 20 years ago yet it is completely absent from BG3 (and DOS2). This didn't just effect immersion in terms of the passing of time, but it also affected some NPC schedules/merchant availability/quests. I don't see why a day/night cycle is necessary for the game as it would amount to just having to spam wait constantly so you could shop. Which is what it amounted to in BG1/2. It again feels like "it's different therefore it's bad" as opposed to "this does something for the game". UI: The exact same font from DOS2 is in BG3. DOS2 and BG3 have very clean UI, while BG1/2 UI was specifically made to look rough, like you were using an adventurer’s journal with worn parchment and hand-drawn images. Complaining about font choices feels like the height of nitpicking tbh. Companions: A hallmark of BG2 was the enormous diversity (and quality) of recruitable companions. There were 16 possible companions and you could have up to 6 people in your party, resulting in a huge number of possible party combinations. Enormous amounts of banter and interactions that depended on specific party comps made them feel real, and even 20 years later I’m still hearing banter I have never heard before. DOS2 and BG3 have far fewer possible companions (5 and 10, respectively, even fewer when you consider that recruiting some companions completely lock you from others), significantly less intra-party banter, and only allow a 4-person party, which reduces party diversity compared to BG1/2. A big issue BG1/2 have with party members is the vast majority are throwaway and barely say/do anything. They easily could've cut half of the companions and nobody would've noticed. In BG1 especially the vast majority of companions just say 1 line to the player and that's all you get. In terms of party size, D&D rpgs ever since the beginning have varied party size depending on game balance. Like NWN1 only let you have two party members. Extensive Party Banter was also way easier to program into a game in an era where voice acting was optional. Whereas with voice acting it becomes tedious having characters interrupt you constantly while you're trying to do something. This was also an issue with BG2 and it's why there were popular mods that made the party banter less constant. Origin Characters: The concept of “origin characters”, where your protagonist can be a character that is otherwise recruitable in another playthrough (e.g. Astarion, Lae'zel, Gale, etc), is a Larian exclusive that they first introduced in DOS2. Aside from only further adding to the DOS2 feel, I don’t think that concept of origin characters are a good fit for a Baldur’s Gate game. Why? I don't understand why a novel mechanic like this isn't allowed. BG1/2 is a focused story of a specific character from Candlekeep, Gorion’s ward and the Bhaalspawn destined to determine the fate of Bhaal’s essence. Even if BG3 is about someone new, Origin characters make the game feel less like a specific person’s story. Okay so you'd rather the game just copy the original exactly as opposed to doing something new? Lore and BG1/2 story continuation: This is partially on WOTC for retconning canon but also on Larian for adopting that canon (they ignore canon in some places, such as the fate of Jaheira, so clearly they weren't totally beholden to it). Plot points established in Throne of Bhaal are directly contradicted in BG3, and the treatment of Viconia and Sarevok was really disappointing. Caring about canon is confusing as Baldur's Gate was a game about the player having the freedom to make any decisions you want. Like you could kill characters like Minsc and Jahiera if you wanted to. BG2 even made it's own dubious canonical decisions that people didn't like at the time. Personally I think having Viconia be a boss you can fight is a pretty interesting way of reusing the character. Wanting every character to just be identical 100 years after the fact is frankly boring and uncreative. So what would have made this game feel more like a BG sequel to me? UI that evoked the originals, using the weathered stone palette and hand-drawn parchment instead of the very clean style. So what set Baldur's Gate apart from other rpgs wasn't the impressive storytelling or the amount of freedom the game gave you. It was superficialities like UI. Specific, immersive maps with towns that feel large and lived in and the passage of the time that feels realistic. So every sequel must copy the original down to the minutest detail like how big the levels are? The RTwP style of combat (or at least the option for it). As I said earlier RTwP was only there because of Diablo's popularity. No origin characters, in favour of many more recruitable companions. More respect for the lore established by Baldur’s Gate 1 and 2, especially in the treatment of returning characters. Again I don't see the problem with origin characters. Having more companions would end up making it so they end up being less focused upon in terms of story and most being just throwaway. A lot of this just reads like "they didn't copy the original game exactly, therefore it's bad" as opposed to looking at why certain decisions were done and how they impact the game. Like origin characters are a good example as they provide an immense amount of replayability.
Last edited by ThatDarnOwl; 17/01/24 01:22 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
member
|
|
member
Joined: Nov 2023
|
This game is a major marketing victory. It does not really try to capture the essence of the earlier BG games, because, let's be honest, those were quite niche even for their time. What it tries to do is to present all of the magical quirkiness of the D&D universe. All of it, right out of the gate. The first creature you encounter is a mindflayer, you first companion is a githyanki and the first settlement you visit is full of thieflings. That githyanaki almost immediately wants to have sex with you, just like every other creature or thing in this world...
Planescape Torment also started with a lot of exotic weirdness, but there the goal was to "subvert expectations" about the common tropes of the D&D world. It was also heavily text based, with combat being almost an afterthought. It was mainly meant for the hardcore fans of the genre.
BG3 on the other hand tries to go as mainstream as possible. Everything about it is calculated to maximize the initial impression. That's the reason the first act is so well polished, while parts of the last act are lacking in content, yet full of bugs. It is not piece of art, crafted "with love and passion", but cynically portioned product. The only reason this hype was possible, because our expectations were nerfed into dust by so many soulless AAA releases in the last years.
The game does have its obvious strengths, but it certainly come close to the previous BG games, neither in tone nor depth. At least it is prettier, and you get to have sex with everyone...
|
|
|
|
|
|
stranger
|
|
stranger
Joined: Apr 2024
|
The fad phenomenon of BG3 shows how bad things have gotten over time. It is worth the effort to try and educate newcomers, as there are a great many people new to this game/IP but who have never heard of BG1 or played 1st, 2nd or 3rd edition. Surprisingly, once they realize what things really were like, some of them are genuinely interested. Reaching these people are how things can get better, and they are the ones who will carry this tradition in a form worthy of surviving.
This OP is great, and its not the only voice reaching people. The human need for good storytelling is eternal, and identity politics and degeneracy cannot stay on the top shelf of popularity for much longer. There are several new remakes (brands) of D&D out now, which are meeting the needs of people who want what the old systems provided. Stay vocal, and don't give up!
|
|
|
|
|
|
member
|
|
member
Joined: Oct 2023
|
The fad phenomenon of BG3 shows how bad things have gotten over time. It is worth the effort to try and educate newcomers, as there are a great many people new to this game/IP but who have never heard of BG1 or played 1st, 2nd or 3rd edition. Surprisingly, once they realize what things really were like, some of them are genuinely interested. Reaching these people are how things can get better, and they are the ones who will carry this tradition in a form worthy of surviving.
This OP is great, and its not the only voice reaching people. The human need for good storytelling is eternal, and identity politics and degeneracy cannot stay on the top shelf of popularity for much longer. There are several new remakes (brands) of D&D out now, which are meeting the needs of people who want what the old systems provided. Stay vocal, and don't give up! I still have hope that BioWare hasn't bought into this crap for their upcoming Dreadwolf. Wait, who am I kidding? All BioWare sees these days are $$$. Expect more and possibly worse, degeneracy. And my heart aches.
|
|
|
|
|
|
addict
|
|
addict
Joined: Aug 2023
|
I still have hope that BioWare hasn't bought into this crap for their upcoming Dreadwolf. There is no company named Bioware anymore, and hasnt been for over a decade. Bioware is literally just the label EA puts on their developer studios. Nothing less, nothing more. All important people from Bioware, such as the founders, have left EA quite quickly, too. Bioware is a memory and a brand name. Not an independent company that can make own decisions. So its the decision of EA. Not Bioware, which doesnt exist.
|
|
|
|
|
|
member
|
|
member
Joined: Oct 2023
|
I still have hope that BioWare hasn't bought into this crap for their upcoming Dreadwolf. There is no company named Bioware anymore, and hasnt been for over a decade. Bioware is literally just the label EA puts on their developer studios. Nothing less, nothing more. All important people from Bioware, such as the founders, have left EA quite quickly, too. Bioware is a memory and a brand name. Not an independent company that can make own decisions. So its the decision of EA. Not Bioware, which doesnt exist. We are all aware that EA controls the corporate entity known as BioWare, and we all know how disastrous that is. No need to keep repeating it ad nauseum.
Last edited by Liarie; 17/05/24 12:26 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Oct 2021
|
We are all aware that EA controls the corporate entity known as BioWare, and we all know how disastrous that is. No need to keep repeating it ad nauseum. In fairness, there are a lot of folks who don't really know that. You have to be somewhat deep into gaming to have knowledge of the ins and outs of companies. ETA: I guess what I mean is that I think you're more well informed than you realize.
Last edited by JandK; 17/05/24 04:17 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
member
|
|
member
Joined: Oct 2023
|
We are all aware that EA controls the corporate entity known as BioWare, and we all know how disastrous that is. No need to keep repeating it ad nauseum. In fairness, there are a lot of folks who don't really know that. You have to be somewhat deep into gaming to have knowledge of the ins and outs of companies. ETA: I guess what I mean is that I think you're more well informed than you realize. Fair enough. 
|
|
|
|
|
