Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - Suggestions & Feedback Please call this game what it is, DOS III

Please keep your distance and don't feed the troll!

I don't know about you, but I still play original NWN and I've played BG2 recently, as well as more faithful imitations such as PoE (which was a failure of storytelling and writing, not mechanics and engine), so I feel like this argument is disingenuous. Would I want to play IWD again? Not really, because it was more about hack & slash and that doesn't age as well. But I don't agree that combat in BG2 was atrocious and fundamentally flawed. DOS1, DOS2, and BG3 have a fundamental flaw, IMO, of being turn based and requiring you to sit around doing nothing in larger fights. Smaller fights aren't horribly long, but they're long enough to break up the flow of the dungeon or mission you're on. If you're killing goblins in a village, no longer can you have hordes of weak enemies rush at you, because that would take too long. Or you can, but then you force the player to suffer through a really boring slogfest. In BG2 or NWN you can just autoattack your way through in "real time" while the computer handles the complexities of initiative and turns.

In BG1, BG2, IWD, NWN I didn't have to wait for 100 enemies to complete their turns before I could play, every single round. In DOS1, DOS2, and BG3 I do. If they fixed this (and some other stuff), then I would be thrilled. The frustrating thing is they already had an example of a successful transition from 2D to 3D D&D in the original Neverwinter Nights (which had separate issues with writing & is hideous to look at), and bad examples (NWN2, Dragon Age Inquisition) so it should've been pretty easy to determine what needed to change, fundamentally, to support D&D.

It's like Larian assumed that because DOS1 and DOS2 sold well, people like everything about it compared to games like PoE. IMO, there's just a greater audience for 3D games instead of isometric and people have been putting up with some of the Divinity engine's flaws because it's more accessible to them as a game. There's also the issue of expectations. I like both Divinity games and Baldur's Gate games, but I have different expectations and wants from them. It's like if someone sold me a Star Trek game but it was really just a reskin of Kotor, with most of the same mechanics. If I liked both, I'd probably still enjoy playing it and it'd still be a good game. But it wouldn't be Star Trek.

It is D:OS3 with D&D skin for better and for the worse.

Frankly I would certainly prefer them straight do D:OS3, because in my opinion D&D rulesets drag it down, but nothing we can do about it - it is Baldur's Gate, it is D&D and I am glad they make it D&D 5e ruleset, because a lot of nonsense and junk was cleaned up there. So yeah, I'll sure play BG3 a ton and enjoy it a lot, even if I will puke my soul out with everything being controlled by D&D's inherent RNG.


I do hope that eventually Larian will make a proper and deterministic D:OS3, where you don't have to fight imaginary dice every step you make.

---

And for the record, I enjoy Larian's turn based combat and D&D is a turn-based system, that every other game before has bastardized it, because of some weird assumptions or limitations - is not an issue with BG3.

Yes, the feedback about computer turns taking too long is fair, but Larian will likely introduce combat speed slider for computer-controlled enemies, I just hope they will make it a bit smarter, like subsequent enemy units taking turn together to cut time and giving player an option to make their movement fast, while combat action like swings and casts normal speed.

there are no magic devices to use in this game... and i paid the early access tour bus allready. it's like the sex you never wanted. -early accsexx-

That I can agree with... with makes it even more frustrating that this turn-based system comes with those wacky D:OS bells and whistles.

There is a topic for discussing RT/TB; please take further discussion there. Sorry to be pedantic, but it's "that" irreconcilable debate that has derailed very many topics.

If people want this game to feel like BG and/or BGII they are being unreasonable, and slightly irrational based on the facts below.

First the system, AD&D, that BG I & II used as their template is multiple iterations in the past.

The owner of the IP has changed hands twice since then TSR > WotC > Hasbro (Through buying WotC)

The studios that made the two games don't exist anymore - one literally doesn't exist (Black Isle) and the other doesn't have a single staff member left that made these two games (Bioware) if i have my facts correct at least not people in the top design positions of the company.

The publisher who published the games doesn't exist anymore.

So the rules don't exist anymore, the developers don't exist and the publisher doesn't exist and the original license owner doesn't exist anymore. What RATIONAL view of the facts would make anyone REASONABLY think they would get a BG III that played like the originals?

This ignores the huge technology leaps in the past 20 years and the major changes in quality of life improvements that often change how a game "feels" to play because things have improved by so much. To say nothing of cognitive biases that screw up our memories of how games actually played from that many years ago. You see this most starkly when people complain about humour in a BG III game because that isn't how I and II approached things. Yet time and time again people can point to very numerous and specific instances where humour was part and parcel to the BG experience. When this is pointed out people time and time again make excuses and try to rationalize their point. The fact is their memory is flawed and they are not "wrong" that BG feels more like a dark RPG because that is what they remember. Yet for other people they are not wrong when they say the entire series was chalked full of humourous situations. The fact is people take different things from the games so no sequel 20 years later is going to hit the right notes because people remember different notes.

If your expectations that BG III should or would play like BG I & II, then your expectations need to be adjusted. Too much time has passed, the rule set used to make BG III is multiple version removed from the original games. The publisher, developers and license owner have all disappeared for the first games and the new license owner has ZERO desire to make a BG I & II style game mechanically. This is why both Obsidian and inXile entertainment have both tried and failed to get the license for BG III for over a decade.* Hasbro's WotC wouldn't give it to them for a REASON. yet would give to Larian. Why? Think about that for a bit.

This game does NOT play like DOS or DOS II, the entire combat system is different. The game is far more similar to 5e that you give it credit for and yet plays very different from most of the D&D games in the past because most previous D&D computer games are not based on 5e rules. So again is it reasonable to expect a game based on 5e to play like a game based on 2e rules or 3e rules? I don't think so.

Now I am not going to attack the OP on their choice to refund the game or people's opinion that they don't like the game, because entertainment (all entertainment) is subjective. So liking or disliking entertainment is neither right nor wrong, it simple just is. I simply feel people's expectation for this game are wildly unreasonable given the amount of time that has past, that ALL the principle players involved have change, most of which no longer exist, and the very core IP this game is based on have gone through 4 iterations from AD&D (3.0, 3.5, 4e & 5e). The original games are simple just too far removed to use them as a..., again, reasonable benchmark to anchor current expectations for BG III.

I personally feel the only reasonable comparisons/expectations are along narrative lines, but only broadly speaking. BG I & II told a specific story that had a beginning, middle, and end. So my expectations for BG III narratively are is is dark, is it humourous, does it have meaningful relationships with companions and does the setting tie into the first games? Their seems to be all three narrative elements there and the setting is the same. so... To be clear this doesn't mean if it has all the above elements that makes the game good, or that the only reasonable position is you like the game. There are many "faithful" sequels to games and other forms of entertainment i think are crap.

TL;DR;
It is reasonable to dislike or like the game, it is unreasonable to expect BG III to play and feel like BG I & II, especially mechanically.


*[source] https://www.ign.com/articles/2019/0...t-the-rights-to-baldurs-gate-3-a-e3-2019

Let's just say: There is big group of Buldur's Gate and CRPG vets that might disagree with you there, and Larian took them all aboard when they took up this IP... whether they like it or not. Seriously, this happens all the time these days... Star Wars, Star Trek, Ghostbusters, etc. etc. etc. and it's always the same apologia when it goes south: "It's not like the original property of old you remember, and that's a good thing" or "...and it shouldn't be!" or "...deal with it!" etc. blah blah, all the stupid hot takes one can imagine...

Yea, no, you take up an existing IP for an easy nostalgia headstart and name recognition, you have to deal with the baggage... that's how it works. You don't want that? Make/stick to your own IPs, and leave the classics alone. End of story.

BG3 is only in EA and it is the top seller in Steam. It’s probably going to sell really well and make Larian boatloads of money. So your instance on purity ultimatum is definitely not the end of the story. Despite your instances, Larian can and will ride roughshod over your demands. 😂

We'll see about that... remember, the "new" SW trilogy made billions, and still damaged the franchise permanently.

Look, I know, it's hard living in an era/generation where practically everything worthwhile has already been done, and done better, before, I get it... so, feel free to call me a purist, a gate keeper, or whatever let's you sleep at night, it doesn't really matter.

I don’t think we are living in an era where everything that has already been done has been done better. I think video games are better than they ever have been.

Baldur’s Gate 1 and 2 were my favorite games growing up. Divinity OS2 is my favorite RPG since then. Having them make a baby is a dream come true for me, and based on what I’ve played so far BG3 will probably be my new favorite game of all time. I’m sleeping great these days.

And despite the new SW trilogy being utter crap, the franchise isn’t any more damaged than the prequel trilogy being utter crap, too. That new Star Wars game did really well and Baby Yoda is a global phenomenon. I don’t think you are a very good adjudicator of success and failure.

Now what really doesn’t matter is you telling Larian what they can and can’t do. I’m not trying to be mean, but that’s a fact, because they are totally doing something you said that they can’t do. They are making this game their own, it’s probably going to sell better than the original games, so the baggage of purists is a non-factor.

What we have to remember is how much Larian loves the IP.

Yes it got them money.

Yes it got them fans.

Yes a huge part of the fanbase is angry with a few choices.

But in the end I believe they want to give us the game we want.

They said EA was to see what worked and what didn't.

Not everything will change, but hopefully enough.

I believe in Larian and Sven, let's complain and suggest, I think most of us will be happy in the end.

Well said, and another to note is that there's plenty of fans who will never be pleased no matter what you make.

You can't make a BG3 that makes everyone happy. Look at the remasters of BG1-2. A vast majority of people couldn't even get through the beginning of the game, as seen in the steam achievement charts. The nostalgia glasses were ripped off.

If you add every feature that these purists want you'll make a terrible game that really won't sell well at all. Not even mentioning that you have multiple audiences here, simply going RTwP would alienate the DnD audience which is far bigger than the number of fans for the original rtwp games.

Just a note about die formulation, because its not only you i see this reasoning several times yet in the forum, and is clarly that people asking for it don't know how die distribution works. A dice roll can only be show as a range when you roll only one dice. If you roll, for example 2D6, you can't show it as 2-12.

Because anyone that see 2-12 would naturally think that any result can be rolled with the same chance. A roll of 2D6 dont work like that , when you roll 2D6 the most likely result is 7 because it have the bigger number of permutations of results in each indicidual dice (1+6, 2+5, 3+4 and the other way around). Every result above and under 7 have less permutations until 2 and 12 wich only have one each (1+1/6+6).


So if they put 2-12 for a 2D6 roll shortly you have a bunch of people with torches claiming the RNG is byasse because they are rolling a lot of 6/7/8 and very little 11/12

Here is hoping... I wouldn't have shilled out 60 bucks otherwise.

DoS is massively popular and DoS3 would have sold extremely well. Don't be a retard just because you don't like the games. WotC tapped Larian to make BG3. WotC tapped Larian because they are fans of DoS. If they didn't think the company who made DoS would make BG3 like DoS, they wouldn't have asked Larian to do it. If you want to be mad at anyone, be mad at WotC. Larian made a game exactly how we'd expect Larian to make a game. I'm a huge fan of DoS and have no problem with BG3 being like DoS. If you don't like it, refund it as you did. Coming to this forum crying asking them to 'change the name of the game' is the most retarded tantrum I can imagine.

There are some parts that are very DOS2, which I didn't really like. I'm hoping they can keep some of those influences to a minimum and really embrace the feeling of table top D&D.

does that not indicate how important the topic is to the community?

It is really important to some people, but it absolutely does need to be isolated to its own thread, otherwise eventually every topic turns into a RT/TB debate. 😂

yeah, no fair enough. I was just thinking statistically. There is a fundamental lesson to be drawn from a data set that consistently gets drawn to one topic over others. Swen loves statistics, so I hope he is listening. That's all.