Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - General So, how's the game?

I wrote here last before the Early Access came out. I don't unfortunately have a computer capable of running modern games at the moment, but I am intrigued whether the game is any good from an old school fans perspective. I have read a few early reviews, and they've been positive but naturally a bit mixed since it's a long ways from finished.

When I last posted, there were multiple issues that worried fans of the original games:

no day/night cycle
forced camping scenes
turn based combat
linear structure
overall feel of the game being too "larian"

How do you feel the game has tackled these issues? Does the lack of day/night cycle make it a distictly different experience? Does it retain the epic & freeform feel of the old games at all? Is the combat as fun as in the originals? Is the structure too linear, does it feel more like a japanese RPG than a semi-open world experience? Is it any good if you love the old games and expect something similar?

Thanks!

"from an old school fans perspective", eh? I wrote here last after the game had been announced for a short time, after making a bunch of posts expressing my hope and expectation as a diehard fan of the original games, and way before the EA came out. I haven't played the EA or watched any gameplay footage but from all the feedbacks I've read - both on here and on the GOG product page - I'm confident to say that this game is shaping up to be everything I did not want it to be - a DOS3 rather than anything that remotely resembles the old BG games.

That being said, before any DOS fan jumps in and starts attacking me with arguments like "if you're disappointed that this game is different then your opinion is wrong": I no longer have the inclination to engage in such an argument; I've done enough of that in the past. Also, though I'm disappointed because I had too much hope, that doesn't mean I'm hating this game. I can change my attitude and treat this as another DOS game and forget about the whole "this being a BG game" altogether; this is easy enough for me to do. I did enjoy my playthroughs of DOS and DOS2.

"Is it any good if you love the old games and expect something similar?"

If you "expect something similar", you will be sorely disappointed. But is it any good? It can still be.

day/night cycle: so far, doesn't seem likely
forced camping scenes: not sure what you mean
TB combat: yes
linear structure: as in linear story? Dunno
overall feel being too "Larian": most likely

"Does the lack of day/night cycle make it a distictly different experience?" - probably. It's not like we have two versions of the game one with day/night cycle and the other without so we can compare. But the lack of day/night cycle means it will miss out on many cool things associated with time of day, that's for sure.

"Does it retain the epic & freeform feel of the old games at all? Is the combat as fun as in the originals?" - one can only hope.

What does it even mean linear structure? O_o

I mean, so far we have at least 3 different ways to approach the main quest (removing tadpole >> ) ... with another 3 options that will become dead end, when done () ...
Every side quest as far as i know, can be done it at least two different ways ...
Most encounters can be either dealt with force, or avoided by stealth, or (if you are lucky) you can even talk your way out. O_o

What im trying to say is that there isnt even a single things i would call linear, so i dont even know where this worry was sourced. O_o

Hmm, perhaps linear was the wrong way to put it. I was mostly meaning open ended vs. chronologically advancing plot, like how much does the game push you forward from one area to the next, can you go back and forth, can you do quests in different order? BG 1&2 were kind of half-linear, meaning as the main plot advanced you'd open up new areas and sometimes lose access to others, but there was still high level quests hidden in areas you mostly spent time in the early game. Example of a linear game with possibly multiple solutions to quests would be most JRPG's, while a completely or mostly non-linear game would be Skyrim or some of the Fallout games.

Oh I see what you mean. Well the answer to that is we don't know. Within a single Act of the game you can go wherever you want. So In ACT I its a completely open world for what is available with a lot of optional stuff that you can get involved with/or not. You can travel around and back and forth to places. However, we don't think you can travel back to this area from Act 2 once you are finished with it. There is some discussion happening on making certain areas continually traversable after the fact - with Baldur's Gate itself being pointed to as an area that would be good to be able to always return to.

but again we don't know. Baldur's gate is supposedly Act 2, and there is a 3rd Act. It may be once you pass Act 2 you won't be able to return to Baldur's Gate OR Baldur's Gate gets attacked, or damaged somehow and so becomes a ruined city.

Oh, that much we dont know yet ... we still have practicaly one map only.
But i allready managed to screw few sidequests by doing the main one first.

Day / Night cycle has not been discussed by larian as far as I can see at this point which is something that may come up over time.

Forced camping scenes thats just a time progression path to the tadpole after x amount of time it does trigger different story interactions. / Use of the tadpole and sleep triggering effects / story progression and camping triggering effects. If your are fairly efficient with combat you can get about 4 combats in before you need to rest.

The turn based combat they have said is here to stay there was an interview done with larion where they stated it will be / stay turn based if there is a RTwp option based on the interview it would not be changed for the base game release. Would most likely be added down the road as dlc content if at all.

Structure isnt really to linear there are alternate paths to approaching things that do change the outcome mostly the good / evil path options the most obvious being siding with different factions within the game.

I personally dont really feel its too larian there are a bit too many explosive ways of dealing with things it does seem like they toned down some of that a little but it could be done a bit more. Some of the combat effects I would assume they are holding off correcting them till majority of content is added to make it easier to filter out things like spells specifically and wizards I would hope they plan to remove wizards being able to cast divine spells from scrolls. It just makes Wizards way to overpowered and not feel even remotely like dnd in that aspect. Swapping weapons needs a fix as well you should not be able to change weapons without using a bonus action. and back stab needs to require a target being flanked to be applicable. Outside that there is nothing super standoffish with combat that I dont think needs a major fix. Ranger also still needs more work with animal companions IMO since they planned to take that a different route which I think is a positive thing as the base game ranger does need an overhaul which even WoTC has stated its the weakest class. Scaling the animal companions is a good starting point for that.

Nothing new has been added since the druid. I wouldnt set my expectations to high on anything new coming in anytime soon.

The game has a huge potential but lot of things are going wrong especially in the mechanics and definitely, the game feels like an improved "classic Larian games" rather than, a whole new RPG experience.
Of course everyone may like the extravagant Larian style or not (story, WTF companions, visual effects,,...)

- The exploration is really interresting and I'm still finding new area after 300 hours (area that I didn't found in my playtrough but I heard about).
- The game is beautifull, no doubt.
- The story, the quests and the dialogs have interresting and/or unexpected pathes.

It's work in progress but I guess they'll succeed at creating, once again very new and very enjoyable mechanics related to the story, side quests, environnment, exploration and so on.

On the other hand the entire experience, the story you're writing doesn't always really feel coherent.

There's a lot of lore and the themes are mature... but the game throw at you silly things all the time (animations, visual effects, mechanics,...).
In french we say "il à son cul entre deux chaises", "it has it's ass between 2 chairs"... BG3 wants to be mature and silly/childish/cartoonish at the same time.

It worked in their custom world according to me but it doesn't at all in an established settings like DnD and the Forgotten Realms. Larian's definition of fun looks more "silly" than "mature" to me.
I hoped they'll change thisfor BG3 but it looks they won't. Looks like that's how they plan to design all their games.

- So when you're talking with NPCs it's serious.

- Most of the time when you're exploring it is serious even if the map design create a theme park feeling (a forest with 10 trees, a swamp smaller than my garden, tons of different creatures on a small area, the evil characters that cannot find the good ones that are litteraly 2 minutes further,....)
The "open world" feel frozen and everyone is waiting for you. The lack of day and night cycle completely increase this feeling and you cannot expect any variations visually AND mechanically (hiding better at night, bandits on the road at night, different NPC position at night or someone ever sleeping,...)

- Then combats start and you'll eat pigs head between 2 attacks, you'll jump like a super hero creating a shockwave when you land, a cow will climb a ladder, every dead character is gonna loose all the blood in it's body as soon as he's dead, poison surfaces will appear everywhere, your characters will move like chickens because of the chain mechanic, and so on.

About combats there are a lot of threads you may read but a lot of us don't find them satisfying.

There are a lot of classes but playing the game as intented makes them way less unique.
After a few hours you'll notice that there are good buttons and bad buttons. The game rewards you when you use some mechanics that everyone can use from level 1 to 4 and punish you, making the game harder if you don't.

It lacks a lot of tactical depth and your strategy will usually only rely on "killing before being killed".

Anyway great potential. Probably the potential to become the best cRPG of all time... But there's still a lot of things that makes BG3 more a hybrid of DoS/DnD rather than the followings of the legend.

I really mind your suggestions. It helps me improve my English

I am still going with as my 30 second pitch for BG3

DOS2 using the Forgotten Realms Lore.

Yes, it's not 100% DOS2 mechanics but it feels like they just reskinned / refavored DOS2 to make it sound like D&D instead of building 5e from the ground up.

All style over substance, looks pretty, less filling.

BG3 shaping up to be an OK game, not the game of a decade that I was hoping for.

My recommendation is wait for the definitive release that we'll get a few years after it goes gold and then only buy that during one of Steam's massive sales where you can get it at 1/2 price.

This was meant to be a joke, unfortunately, it is very close to reality.

No, that was not a joke, that is my current opinion / recommendation. BG3 is definitely not worth buying at release, it's a so-so game not worth the money or your time and I really do not expect it to improve much before release for me to change that opinion.

It depends what you want and what you expect.

It is a Larian RPG, in the similar way as Fallout3 was Bethesda's. If you had any experience with D:OS1&2 it should give you an idea if you will enjoy BG3 or not.

Personally, I think it misses what made Baldur's Gate enjoyable, but I think BG3 can be enjoyable in its own way. Overall, I enjoyed my time with BG3 more then D:OS2. My biggest concerns are tidium that comes from UI and control scheme, and changes that Larian makes to DnD systems.

Personally, I think Fallout 3 was actually fairly faithful in its transition to 3D Action RPG.

Most of the mechanics present derived from the originals such as how Skills and SPECIAL were handled. It made sure to call back to how combat acted in the original with the VATs system and making AP a core resource. It actually did its research on the lore and characters of the series, such as when they wanted the BoS to be a more hero like faction they did a great amount of justification by having the Outcasts exist and making the BoS still be very condescending about locals and wanting to secure technology. And it tied back to the original by making the main conflict about water, and even gave thought to the Super Mutants by giving them a goal because their supply of FEV is limited essentially leading them to the end you convinced the Master of, where as a race they are doomed to die out cause they can not effectively reproduce.
True there were some things that were not so well thought out, I don't remember any explanation of how Little Lamplight maintains its population (I would have to guess kidnapping...?) and the Enclave almost felt like they were entirely disconnected from the events of Fallout 2 when it would have been nice to feel it be more connected with more hard references to them having regrouped in the Capital as their last ditch effort or something. But overall, I felt Fallout 3 was a faithful adaptation in line with the series, unlike 4 which needed like a few more months to a year of development for its writing, especially since somehow Elder Maxson of all people just forgot the Codex existed and you have no opportunity to actually levy the Codex and there was none of the finagling of factions you could do in NV or 2, as well as a certain detachment from the series themes as a whole.

I mentioned it less to how it adapted systems into FPS, but how it is fundamentally different type of RPG then fallout 1&2 - in terms of appeal, structure, pacing, tone. Fallout3 was "Oblivion in Fallout universe" rather then "First Person Fallout game".

As a Larian, Baldur's Gate and D&D fan I'm sad to say the game is still a disappointment. Larian's design vision coupled with lackluster communication skills have turned me off on them a bit as well. Though I'm sure I would have enjoyed the game more if it wasn't attempting to portray itself as Baldur's Gate -- or D&D for that matter. It kind of fails in both regards for now.

I can see where you are coming from, I disagree personally but I can see it.
But that does go into how BG3 really does need to nail BG instead of DOS in BG universe.

Even though that EA only has about 25 hours worth of content, I somehow managed to put in 270 hours into the game. So, i enjoy it, and it reminds me a-lot of Dragon Age origins.

"only about 25 hours" ...
I know games that dont even offer as much in full release.

This is the fairest and most complete summary of the game (at least as it is now) I have ever seen.

I think the most important part is the bottom line - although it will probably be a good game, I doubt it will be anything more than a nice game you get on sale from steam. Nowhere close to the legend people hoped for.