|
|
|
addict
|
addict
Joined: Jul 2017
|
As I said in the other post (joking) Larian should just change the name of the game so people will stop complaining that "it is not like Baldurs Gate".
Yeah it is not like it, so what? Get over it, the game is good. I will go futher and say that it is a better implementation of the D&D ruleset compared to the old RtwP BG saga. I agree. It's going to be an amazing game and they are adapting the 5e rules very good. The old BG games also had to change things to make it work as a video game. Saying all that, this game has nothing to do with Baldur's Gate as a series, at list it shouldn't be called BG3, maybe BG and a title or something like that, Baldur's Gate: Darkness of the Absolute, or some such, like the old Dark Alliance games, but it is surely not the third chapter of the series. You can't make a Batman movie, call it Superman 3, and then say, "yeah it is not like it, so what? Get over it, the movie is good". The fact that it's good (and it truly is), doesn't make it a Baldur's Gate game. It just make it a good game. Frankly, I don't see that... yes, I am critical of what the game is right now, and I never really liked the Divinity games that much, but I DO see some Baldur's Gate ideas in there already. I think the name could very well fit the game in few months time, if Larian can get over themselves and tone their particular brand of crazy a bit down, ground the game a bit more in the world and IP, and bring the presentation closer to what the BG games had. A new Bladur's Gate game doesn't have to be an infinity engine 2.0 affair like the POE series was, or a clunky Pathfinder slog like Kingmaker... it can be more snappy and modern, while still keeping the BG look, feel and heart. What he said. We don't need so much divinity in BG3. We just need what they said BG3 would be, which is a faithful adaptation of 5e ruleset. Right now it's faithful in some things but in most...it is so far down the hole you can't even see it with darkvision.
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Aug 2014
|
I'm not nostalgic or a rules purist. But I'm not fully onboard Larian's choices either.
I want BG3 to have a believable setting that resembles the real world in the spirit of D&D, aside from magic and mind flayers obviously. It's all about immersion.
It just rubs me the wrong way when I see oil barrels everywhere in illogical places clearly for "fun" gameplay reasons alone, or arrows exploding in huge pools of acid and fire. I mean.. explosions, acid, magic etc. ARE part of the game but you don't have to exaggerate them to ridiculous proportions. And this seems to be a Larian thing, based on DOS and now BG3. Jumping and Shoving like superheroes, anything with half an excuse leaving a surface on the battlefield, food healing you in combat like in platform games... it's over the top. And everything that is over the top or balance breaking, is something where Larian changed the rules. 5e is more grounded. BG is part of an already established franchise with certain expectations.
I understand video games are different from tabletop and doing a 100% conversion is not necessarily the best way. But consider that the above hasn't been an issue with previous D&D CRPGs. BG, IWD, NWN or even Pathfinder which is a somewhat more cartoony take on D&D were all great games without exploding barrels and pools of fire and acid everywhere. Dragon Age, Pillars of Eternity.. great games without comical jumping and shoving.
I just think Larian needs to tone down the silly gamey stuff for BG3 and stick with 5e. They have already put their stamp on the game with the player agency and freedom for creative solutions which doesn't exist in any of the non-Larian titles above. And it's awesome and impressive. Just save the over the top stuff for Divinity series where it belongs. I know what to expect when I play Divinity and I will like it there. But don't turn D&D into Divinity.
Last edited by 1varangian; 12/10/20 07:36 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
enthusiast
|
|
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2020
|
with 1 caveat. A surface must be as easy (or easier) to remove than it is to apply. . I hadn't thought of this but I think you're right. Like there was a room full of poison which I wanted to get past. I did what I'd do in Divinity, which is blast it with fire to get rid of it, but that had no effect. I assume they got rid of reactions like that because it would be too extreme for the more subtle nature of these rules, but in a way by being half way in between it actually makes it less manageable. I think I know the area you're talking about, and shooting a firebolt at the ground in that area should cause it to explode into flames like it does in DOS2, the problem then is you have to put out the fire and run through it before it starts emitting the poison gas again. This worked fine in DOS2 cause I honestly just tanked my way right through the fire surfaces, but in BG3 since armor doesn't work the same, it makes this small obstacle into a massive one. Mainly because the only way I had to put out fires at the time was 2 bottles of water and Shadowheart's Create Water spell, which ate up her spell slots and wasn't even enough to actually get me through all of the poison clouds. I find that at the very last poison cloud, there is in area where you can jump right past it off on the left side, so that helped a bit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
enthusiast
|
|
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2020
|
As I said in the other post (joking) Larian should just change the name of the game so people will stop complaining that "it is not like Baldurs Gate".
Yeah it is not like it, so what? Get over it, the game is good. I will go futher and say that it is a better implementation of the D&D ruleset compared to the old RtwP BG saga. I agree. It's going to be an amazing game and they are adapting the 5e rules very good. The old BG games also had to change things to make it work as a video game. Saying all that, this game has nothing to do with Baldur's Gate as a series, at list it shouldn't be called BG3, maybe BG and a title or something like that, Baldur's Gate: Darkness of the Absolute, or some such, like the old Dark Alliance games, but it is surely not the third chapter of the series. You can't make a Batman movie, call it Superman 3, and then say, "yeah it is not like it, so what? Get over it, the movie is good". The fact that it's good (and it truly is), doesn't make it a Baldur's Gate game. It just make it a good game. Frankly, I don't see that... yes, I am critical of what the game is right now, and I never really liked the Divinity games that much, but I DO see some Baldur's Gate ideas in there already. I think the name could very well fit the game in few months time, if Larian can get over themselves and tone their particular brand of crazy a bit down, ground the game a bit more in the world and IP, and bring the presentation closer to what the BG games had. A new Bladur's Gate game doesn't have to be an infinity engine 2.0 affair like the POE series was, or a clunky Pathfinder slog like Kingmaker... it can be more snappy and modern, while still keeping the BG look, feel and heart. What he said. We don't need so much divinity in BG3. We just need what they said BG3 would be, which is a faithful adaptation of 5e ruleset. Right now it's faithful in some things but in most...it is so far down the hole you can't even see it with darkvision. Not even my drow can see it, and she has 80 feet of darkvision
|
|
|
|
|
|
stranger
|
|
stranger
Joined: Oct 2020
|
I don't have any problem with the original fans. I'm just sick of seeing a thousand things a day about how they hate anything that's changed from the originals (obviously a minority). I only played a bit of BG1 back in the day. I think I was a bit young. I played a bunch of Neverwinter Nights (mostly the level editor lol). Personally I think you couldn't make a modern game like the original BGs and have it be as good but that's just personal (For instance Pillars of Eternity didn't really do it for me, which I think is a spiritual successor). I agree that maybe the problem is just the '3'. It's actually essentially a soft reboot, which (again personally) I think is a good thing. Yeah but you have to see it from their (well, mine actually) point of vue. If another studio made a Divinity Original Sin 3 game in the future with no surface interactions and real time strategy with active pause, I guess most of the fans of the franchise would say it doesn't belong in the DOS franchise, and they would be right. When OG BG fans complain about the game not feeling like a Baldur's Gate game right now, it has little to do with the quality of development. Larian were the one deciding to go with a massively beloved franchise and a hardcore fanbase. Expecting Larian to get a free pass in this situation just because they did well on their own franchise is whishful thinking. Some people are displeased for legitimate reasons, and if you don't understand them it's not necessarily their fault. That being said, I didn't see many people outside of Steam being rude or dismissive, and I feel like everyone agrees that the foundation is solid, but it needs a few major shifts in philosophy to get back on the Baldur's Gate way.
|
|
|
|
|
|
apprentice
|
|
apprentice
Joined: Oct 2020
|
tl;dr:
For instance, there's a lot of rage going on about surfaces. I'm not saying they shouldn't be changed at all, but I think the main problems people are having with them are a) companions walking through them out of combat (but this is just a pathfinding issue. DOSII companions never walk on surfaces and it's not a problem) and b) some people are finding combat too hard because of them.
Personally I like surfaces (again I'm not against tweaks and changes to make them work better). I think one of the best things about tabletop RPGs is the creativity you can use, based on the 'computer' being human. You obviously can't do that with a video game, so I think you need systems like surfaces, movable objects, shoving etc to give the players something to be creative with. Otherwise it's just click on enemy to hurt.
Personally my issue with surfaces isn't that combat is too hard, but that it makes combat too easy for whoever is using them. In the final battle of the Nautaloid Commander Zhalk is a lvl 8 Cambion...as a lvl 1 warlock accompanied by a lvl 1 fighter and an intellect devourer pet, I should be running as far away as quickly as possible. However having picked up every single item that I could I found it comparatively easy to 'nuke' him and the Mindflayer attacking him with a bunch of the large throwable items (can't remember their name Nautaloid Cell or something) that create a patch of flammable goop. A combination of those and a scroll of firebolt basically nukes the pair of them as well as any other Cambions that appear as backup, anyone who gets up after the first one gets nuked again on the next round by the second one being dropped right onto the now burning inferno, rinse and repeat. Now, this was epic, but SHOULD NOT HAPPEN. As a Cambion, Zhalk and his minions should have resistance to Fire damage, this did not appear to be the case here. Also, I not sure if the explosion and resulting 'patch' damage are auto hit (as the math is completely opaque here), but it certainly seems like they are.
|
|
|
|
|
|
enthusiast
|
|
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2020
|
tl;dr:
For instance, there's a lot of rage going on about surfaces. I'm not saying they shouldn't be changed at all, but I think the main problems people are having with them are a) companions walking through them out of combat (but this is just a pathfinding issue. DOSII companions never walk on surfaces and it's not a problem) and b) some people are finding combat too hard because of them.
Personally I like surfaces (again I'm not against tweaks and changes to make them work better). I think one of the best things about tabletop RPGs is the creativity you can use, based on the 'computer' being human. You obviously can't do that with a video game, so I think you need systems like surfaces, movable objects, shoving etc to give the players something to be creative with. Otherwise it's just click on enemy to hurt.
Personally my issue with surfaces isn't that combat is too hard, but that it makes combat too easy for whoever is using them. In the final battle of the Nautaloid Commander Zhalk is a lvl 8 Cambion...as a lvl 1 warlock accompanied by a lvl 1 fighter and an intellect devourer pet, I should be running as far away as quickly as possible. However having picked up every single item that I could I found it comparatively easy to 'nuke' him and the Mindflayer attacking him with a bunch of the large throwable items (can't remember their name Nautaloid Cell or something) that create a patch of flammable goop. A combination of those and a scroll of firebolt basically nukes the pair of them as well as any other Cambions that appear as backup, anyone who gets up after the first one gets nuked again on the next round by the second one being dropped right onto the now burning inferno, rinse and repeat. Now, this was epic, but SHOULD NOT HAPPEN. As a Cambion, Zhalk and his minions should have resistance to Fire damage, this did not appear to be the case here. Also, I not sure if the explosion and resulting 'patch' damage are auto hit (as the math is completely opaque here), but it certainly seems like they are. They are, surfaces and status effects like burning completely ignore AC. It seems like saving throws for some things are a bit buggy currently as well, but I could be misunderstanding what the saving throws are for since it isn't exactly telling me what they're saving against, just that they rolled a save.
|
|
|
|
|
|
enthusiast
|
|
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2017
|
I have played both of the Baldur's Gate games and they are probably my all time favorite combat CRPG, after throwing in things like SCS to turn up the difficulty. With that being said, what I enjoyed about it was the depth of mage combat, with contingencies. sequencers, etc. Things which as far as I am aware of, are likely to not even feature in this game and even if the game did go to 20, are substantially less interesting in 5th edition. Baldur's Gate also took some liberties with the rules at the time, so its not like BG 3 is alone in that regard. Ultimately, the rules of D&D are made for a tabletop game, they are not made for a computer game which means that when you adapt them, some liberties will have to be taken.
Yes, you could just implement cantrips for example 1:1 and completely gut surfaces as a mechanic, but ultimately, in my opinion if you were to implement the 5e rules exactly as is, they would make for a very shallow computer game. This is because whilst at a table you do not want to bog down a game with minutiae, when a computer is doing all the calculations, there is no "bogging down" and this allows you to have a much more complicated ruleset while still maintaining the same combat flow. TBH, 3e or 3.5e would probably make a much better computer game than 5e, but there was no way WOTC would ever allow Larian to use an earlier edition.
For me tactical combat is ultimately my main draw to these games. I personally approve of adding almost anything to the system provided it makes the combat deeper, but that is just me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
stranger
|
|
stranger
Joined: Oct 2020
|
For instance, there's a lot of rage going on about surfaces. I'm not saying they shouldn't be changed at all, but I think the main problems people are having with them are a) companions walking through them out of combat (but this is just a pathfinding issue. DOSII companions never walk on surfaces and it's not a problem) and b) some people are finding combat too hard because of them.
I have serious issue with the surfaces. It's true. Not because of any of the reasons you mention though. It's also not about all surfaces per se. It's attaching them to cantrips that has me worried. It turns them into serious crowd control and debuff spells with negative effects for enemies and allies. I'm noticing that it makes melee characters less useful and that has me concerned. If a choice that's been made negatively impacts a large group of D&D classes I see it as my early access duty to complain about it. That's why we are here, right? I don't feel complaint like that warrant a D&D 5e purist label. Same is true for concerns about how the action economy impacts classes like the Rogue. I don't see the purity or rage in these arguments. The Fighter, Cleric, Thief, Wizard trope is core to D&D. They have their own roles and places within the adventuring party. If Larian's choices make fighters and thieves less viable we should let them know! It's important that fans of these D&D classes get an enjoyable game to, right? This game has also forced me to reflect on what I think makes a Baldur's Gate game. Since I bought and played those games 20 years ago it'll take some time to come to a conclusion on this. Honestly, judging by the way Throne of Bhaal ended I never really needed/wanted a BG3. Yet, here it is! Baldur's Gate is what made me a fan of RPG's and gave me a 20 year long TTRPG hobby that provided me with many of my life long friends. That's huge! It's also unreasonable to expect from this game. So, what made Baldur's Gate? I need to come up with a good answer before I can be critical of Larian's efforts. I do feel I have a grasp of several editions of the D&D game system though, so I'll critique BG3 on that for now. I want to stress however that this is not out of rage or some D&D purity ideal (whatever that is). It's out of a wish for this game to be good, be worthy of that Baldur's Gate title and prove an all round stellar entry in the RPG genre.
|
|
|
|
|
|
enthusiast
|
|
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2020
|
As I said before. D&D is all about challenge ratings and encounter balance... stuff like overly elaborate surface hazards... skews this balance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
apprentice
|
|
apprentice
Joined: Oct 2020
|
As I said before. D&D is all about challenge ratings and encounter balance... stuff like overly elaborate surface hazards... skews this balance. +1 QFT. This is pretty much what I was rambling around in my post above.
|
|
|
|
|
|
apprentice
|
|
apprentice
Joined: Oct 2020
|
BG had a different feeling than divinity (and BG III right now)
For me, personally... it frankly starts with the intro/main menu. The logo is right, the music and background aren't. Neither does the music riff on the classic Raldur's Gate theme (which BG2 did), the moving, 3d background: 100% Divinity OS.
After the game starts, we are frontloaded into a high octane, Planescape'esque action scene. Too much! Beginning a new D&D adventure should have a level appropriate feel. Yea, sure, the whole plane-chase aboard a Nautiloid, hunted by Githyanki raiders on red dragons is ultra cool, but, why not at least flash back to a "a few days earlier" prologue right after, where you can familiarize yourself with your character and the actual world for Toril for 2 or 3 levels, before you are pushed into crazy, Illithid mind bug, eternal Blood War, crazy territory? Remember BG1? You started of going through a more or less lazy day in Candle Keep... with assassins hounding you... before sh*t hit the fan.
Next, it's the whole look an feel of the UI. No right click interaction with character portraits, the inability to select your characters properly, that still very ropy chaining system. Inventory management is also very unintuitive. Equipping weapons and gear is... interesting. Spells scrolls are far too abundant and can be used by every character. 1000 interactive objects in the world, all are full of trash or outright empty. All of that worked so much better even 20 years ago in BG1.
Which leads me into: The rules: Yea, no. The basics are there. We have dice rolls, (very basic) character sheets, a few races, classes, spells and special abilities... but as soon as that's translated into actual gameplay, it's pure bouncy, wacky fun. Everything burns, explodes, falls over, jumps,... just like in Divinity! There is some nice stuff, like that multi faceted dialogues, branching here and there according to who speeks - if they can restrain the writing to stuff that characters in Faerun would actually say. But % chances to hit? Visible perception rolls? Hiding in more or less, plain sight? Bonus actions for everyone? Jeezas!
...and lastly: The world, the story and the characters. Wow, what a mess. I mean, sure, some of it has to be put down to game's status as EA, but also - sadly - to writing. First and foremost: The whole Ilithid tadpole gimmick is shaky from minute one, because... how to put that: Aside the fact that it highly convoluted and probably could be solved in a few, quick and easy ways by a competent group and DM, if it came along in a proper campaign, it completely roots the story in something outside of the world you are supposed to play in. Ilithids are creatures of the planes and Underdark, not Fearun proper. You are a first level adventurer. You shouldn't deal with stuff like that until level 10 plus. Heck, your companions (aside maybe La'zel) and you shouldn't even know about stuff like that without extensive research into obscure lore. It's like if in BG1, you not only immediately got the info that you are a Baal spawn, but also got a party of other god choosen and spawns together, jumped through portal to the plane of fire, and dealt with a conflict between a group of thieflings and Azers... that's D&D "campaign whiplash". So, right after you took that gut punch, and met a possy of the most convoluted adventuring buddies ever, you are reproached by a f-ing demi-fiend/cambion/whatever who immediately offers you an infernal deal! No adventuring down the Sword Coast for a few days/months, solving problems for local hamlets, making a name for yourself, learning to know your companions... instead you have tee with motherf-ing Volo, 5 hours in... and no, that's not the same as meeting Elmister on you way to the Friendly Arm.That one was a nice nod, the other is a lore sledgehammer to the face. See where I'm going with that?
Bottom line: You know who does stories like we got in BG3 right now? Larian, in their Divinity games...
Last edited by KingWilhelm; 12/10/20 08:32 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
journeyman
|
|
journeyman
Joined: Oct 2020
|
A new Bladur's Gate game doesn't have to be an infinity engine 2.0 affair like the POE series was, or a clunky Pathfinder slog like Kingmaker... it can be more snappy and modern, while still keeping the BG look, feel and heart. unfortunately quite a score of old BG players are just daydreaming of those long forgotten BG1&2 vibes
|
|
|
|
|
|
enthusiast
|
|
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2020
|
A new Bladur's Gate game doesn't have to be an infinity engine 2.0 affair like the POE series was, or a clunky Pathfinder slog like Kingmaker... it can be more snappy and modern, while still keeping the BG look, feel and heart. unfortunately quite a score of old BG players are just daydreaming of those long forgotten BG1&2 vibes Honestly? I don't see very much of that either... sure, many old school BG/infinity engine fans are comparing the games of the past with what's on offer in the EA, but I doubt many seriously want those old games to just be "refreshed" with a new coat of paint. If that was the case, the POE games would have been more successful. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
journeyman
|
|
journeyman
Joined: Oct 2020
|
...and lastly: The world, the story and the characters. Wow, what a mess. I mean, sure, some of it has to be put down to game's status as EA, but also - sadly - to writing. First and foremost: The whole Ilithid tadpole gimmick is shaky from minute one, because... how to put that: Aside the fact that it highly convoluted and probably could be solved in a few, quick and easy ways by a competent group and DM, if it came along in a proper campaign, it completely roots the story in something outside of the world you are supposed to play in. Ilithids are creatures of the planes and Underdark, not Fearun proper. You are a first level adventurer. You shouldn't deal with stuff like that until level 10 plus. Heck, your companions (aside maybe La'zel) and you shouldn't even know about stuff like that without extensive research into obscure lore. It's like if in BG1, you not only immediately got the info that you are a Baal spawn, but also got a party of other god choosen and spawns together, jumped through portal to the plane of fire, and dealt with a conflict between a group of thieflings and Azers... that's D&D "campaign whiplash". So, right after you took that gut punch, and met a possy of the most convoluted adventuring buddies ever, you are reproached by a f-ing demi-fiend/cambion/whatever who immediately offers you an infernal deal! No adventuring down the Sword Coast for a few days/months, solving problems for local hamlets, making a name for yourself, learning to know your companions... instead you have tee with motherf-ing Volo, 5 hours in... and no, that's not the same as meeting Elmister on you way to the Friendly Arm.That one was a nice nod, the other is a lore sledgehammer to the face. See where I'm going with that?
Bottom line: You know who does stories like we got in BG3 right now? Larian, in their Divinity games...
This is spot on. And to some extent, the use of the Divinity engine (albeit modified) is a problem too : instead of having a world map with areas we select, which branch out to smaller maps for us to explore, we're stuck on one huge map per act (just as in DOS) which gives me kind of a claustrophobic feeling. The camera doesn't help either (if compared to non tactical solo rpg's like the Witcher, where staring at the sky and the distant landscape gives you a feeling of being free in a huge world). Faerun is huge, BG, IWD and NWN felt so epic because you actually travelled to so many locations, you visited places far away, with different settings and vibes. Even if they are making maps bigger than DOS2, it still feels to me like I'm trapped in a small map and not on a huge epic journey.
|
|
|
|
|
|
stranger
|
|
stranger
Joined: Oct 2020
|
A new Bladur's Gate game doesn't have to be an infinity engine 2.0 affair like the POE series was, or a clunky Pathfinder slog like Kingmaker... it can be more snappy and modern, while still keeping the BG look, feel and heart. unfortunately quite a score of old BG players are just daydreaming of those long forgotten BG1&2 vibes We can always go and play those amazing games. The story is done, it's not like the old BGs left the story open. I think that they decided to call this game BG3 mostly as a marketing strategy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
journeyman
|
|
journeyman
Joined: Oct 2020
|
This is spot on.
And to some extent, the use of the Divinity engine (albeit modified) is a problem too : instead of having a world map with areas we select, which branch out to smaller maps for us to explore, we're stuck on one huge map per act (just as in DOS) which gives me kind of a claustrophobic feeling. The camera doesn't help either (if compared to non tactical solo rpg's like the Witcher, where staring at the sky and the distant landscape gives you a feeling of being free in a huge world).
Faerun is huge, BG, IWD and NWN felt so epic because you actually travelled to so many locations, you visited places far away, with different settings and vibes.
Even if they are making maps bigger than DOS2, it still feels to me like I'm trapped in a small map and not on a huge epic journey.
I think the swamp area and underdark were SUPER well done, but everything outside of those felt super samey. If theres more diverse open world envrionments as we progress I'll be really happy. And yeah, not being able to pan the camera up really sucks 
|
|
|
|
|
|
enthusiast
|
|
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2020
|
This is spot on.
And to some extent, the use of the Divinity engine (albeit modified) is a problem too : instead of having a world map with areas we select, which branch out to smaller maps for us to explore, we're stuck on one huge map per act (just as in DOS) which gives me kind of a claustrophobic feeling. The camera doesn't help either (if compared to non tactical solo rpg's like the Witcher, where staring at the sky and the distant landscape gives you a feeling of being free in a huge world).
Faerun is huge, BG, IWD and NWN felt so epic because you actually travelled to so many locations, you visited places far away, with different settings and vibes.
Even if they are making maps bigger than DOS2, it still feels to me like I'm trapped in a small map and not on a huge epic journey.
...and then there is that. I didn't even talk about it yet, and honestly, I don't think many people even noticed that already, but it appears to be quite accurate. Either the game will have many more maps like we have right now, connected by a world map or traveling system or some such, or the world will end up feeling extremely small.
|
|
|
|
|
|
stranger
|
|
stranger
Joined: Oct 2020
|
This is spot on.
And to some extent, the use of the Divinity engine (albeit modified) is a problem too : instead of having a world map with areas we select, which branch out to smaller maps for us to explore, we're stuck on one huge map per act (just as in DOS) which gives me kind of a claustrophobic feeling. The camera doesn't help either (if compared to non tactical solo rpg's like the Witcher, where staring at the sky and the distant landscape gives you a feeling of being free in a huge world).
Faerun is huge, BG, IWD and NWN felt so epic because you actually travelled to so many locations, you visited places far away, with different settings and vibes.
Even if they are making maps bigger than DOS2, it still feels to me like I'm trapped in a small map and not on a huge epic journey.
I think the swamp area and underdark were SUPER well done, but everything outside of those felt super samey. If theres more diverse open world envrionments as we progress I'll be really happy. And yeah, not being able to pan the camera up really sucks When I got to the hag's cave and there was all of this acid cloud surfaces all over the place it felt like I am playing DOS. As if D&D don't have enough cool spells and effects that they need to add random patches of flame and acid all over the place. If they tell me that they can change just one thing, a single thing, I will ask to remove the surfaces mechanic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
journeyman
|
|
journeyman
Joined: Oct 2020
|
This is spot on.
And to some extent, the use of the Divinity engine (albeit modified) is a problem too : instead of having a world map with areas we select, which branch out to smaller maps for us to explore, we're stuck on one huge map per act (just as in DOS) which gives me kind of a claustrophobic feeling. The camera doesn't help either (if compared to non tactical solo rpg's like the Witcher, where staring at the sky and the distant landscape gives you a feeling of being free in a huge world).
Faerun is huge, BG, IWD and NWN felt so epic because you actually travelled to so many locations, you visited places far away, with different settings and vibes.
Even if they are making maps bigger than DOS2, it still feels to me like I'm trapped in a small map and not on a huge epic journey.
I think the swamp area and underdark were SUPER well done, but everything outside of those felt super samey. If theres more diverse open world envrionments as we progress I'll be really happy. And yeah, not being able to pan the camera up really sucks When I got to the hag's cave and there was all of this acid cloud surfaces all over the place it felt like I am playing DOS. As if D&D don't have enough cool spells and effects that they need to add random patches of flame and acid all over the place. If they tell me that they can change just one thing, a single thing, I will ask to remove the surfaces mechanic. I meant more aesthetically, sorry! That puzzle sucked, I dont think theres a way to do it without taking /some/ damage, be it from jumping or poison or fire. Though, I didn't try placing objects over the 'source' of the gas, bc tedious w/ how far away it was from the rest of the house. Design wise, a pretty brutal mechanic like that leading to a challenging boss fight is good for the "she's actually a scary enemy" factor, but finding a way to make fights challenging or interesting without the abundant use of surfaces would go a long way for Larian
|
|
|
|
|
