There are so many things in this game where I think, 'how did they go from DOS:2 to this?'. DOS:2 was amazing no doubt, but the cinematic style, the companion interactions and party banter, the way the entire game can feel different right from the start, both from a gameplay AND story perspective based on your early choices. I find it pretty mindblowing the generational leap they have made.
Some of the things I LOVE is they finally have companion Banter, in DOS:2 they didn't even bother to really acknowledge anyone else's existence except for the main character, whereas here they are constantly bickering, disagreeing and actually have impact to your party as oppose to just being 'along for the ride'.
BG3 really feels like Divinity Original Sin, and Biowares best RPGS, had a baby and created this game.
Now I know we all have complaints, I myself have posted my own suggestions, but I can't deny the leap from DOS2: to BG3, it's weird how it can feel similar, but at the same time completely different.
You're heading in a good direction here Larian, keep it up we are all rooting for you : )
I thought so originally. There is definitely a lot of Dragon Age influence - if it is good or bad will depend of what you think of those series (for me the series are at the bottom of BioWare catalog - can't speak for shattered steel, Andromeda and Anthem).
BG3 does indeed feel different, but mostly because of how confused it is as to what experience it tries to deliver - I though D:OS2 already had a bit of that problem compared to "pure" D:OS1 but here the conflict is very distracting. It is either too much or not enough like D:OSs. At the same time, BG3 does try to be more of an RPG that I would have an interest with, so I am likely to enjoy it more then I did D:OS2. Will it be a better game though? I think it might not be.
I don't think BG3 is expanding on D:OS2 formula - rather delivering a shallower version of it. I don't think it is delivering on BioWare formula either - but hey Inquisition was received well and I can't slog my way through this boring, buggy mess, so what do I know.
Edit2. BG3 is definitely a far higher budget production and jump in fidelity is noticeable - if that's what you mean.
D:OS2 was its own thing, and it went to 11 doing that thing, and it did it well, more or less. I wasn't trying to be something it wasn't, and while it had plenty of problems, just the fact that it was its own thing, using its own system, meant that it was still pretty fun to play. The writing, where it was actually complete (because the end stages of the game simply weren't, Act 4 was DoA and stayed that way for most of the game's lifespan, and so on...), was of a better quality than we see here; I'm not talking the story itself, which was pretty hot garbage, but the actual calibre of the written parts that made up the interactions of the game. In BG3 those same interactions feel exponentially more childish and poorly constructed, with little to no soul or flavour - this is likely because they're all cut right down to one or two sentences in order to be crammed into the subtitles of a cinematic cutscene, rather than being actually written to convey story and information.
The world feels the same - even down to the little tricks that one developed to manage the object interaction system that D:OS2 had for moving and stacking stuff as well as targeting and pathing; vets of D:OS2 will have a much easier time manipulating objects and managing things in their surroundings like that because they've already learned all of the ways in which the system was touchy about things or was fiddly with - and it all still is in this new game too, identically so.
BG3 does not feel like its own thing - it feels like it is one thing, but is trying to be something else, and thus is really not doing very well at being either of them.
And, at this point, I'm jaded and cynical enough that I'm of the opinion that they are going to run out of time and money and deliver a two-thirds finished game with Act 1 seeming mostly polished, Act 2 being buggy as hell with quests failing to fire properly or not able to be finished correctly, things occurring with no sense or triggering where they aren't meant to, and generally a lot of things not hooking up properly... and then a mostly untested third act which feels empty because it received the least time and effort, and a fourth act which falls apart in most categories, and feels rushed and unfinished... Again. I say again, because that's what they did last time, and their process shows no indication of them doing differently this time.
I have set my bar very low at this stage, in the distant hope that I can be pleasantly surprised.
D:OS2 was its own thing, and it went to 11 doing that thing, and it did it well, more or less. I wasn't trying to be something it wasn't, and while it had plenty of problems, just the fact that it was its own thing, using its own system, meant that it was still pretty fun to play. The writing, where it was actually complete (because the end stages of the game simply weren't, Act 4 was DoA and stayed that way for most of the game's lifespan, and so on...), was of a better quality than we see here; I'm not talking the story itself, which was pretty hot garbage, but the actual calibre of the written parts that made up the interactions of the game. In BG3 those same interactions feel exponentially more childish and poorly constructed, with little to no soul or flavour - this is likely because they're all cut right down to one or two sentences in order to be crammed into the subtitles of a cinematic cutscene, rather than being actually written to convey story and information.
The world feels the same - even down to the little tricks that one developed to manage the object interaction system that D:OS2 had for moving and stacking stuff as well as targeting and pathing; vets of D:OS2 will have a much easier time manipulating objects and managing things in their surroundings like that because they've already learned all of the ways in which the system was touchy about things or was fiddly with - and it all still is in this new game too, identically so.
BG3 does not feel like its own thing - it feels like it is one thing, but is trying to be something else, and thus is really not doing very well at being either of them.
And, at this point, I'm jaded and cynical enough that I'm of the opinion that they are going to run out of time and money and deliver a two-thirds finished game with Act 1 seeming mostly polished, Act 2 being buggy as hell with quests failing to fire properly or not able to be finished correctly, things occurring with no sense or triggering where they aren't meant to, and generally a lot of things not hooking up properly... and then a mostly untested third act which feels empty because it received the least time and effort, and a fourth act which falls apart in most categories, and feels rushed and unfinished... Again. I say again, because that's what they did last time, and their process shows no indication of them doing differently this time.
I have set my bar very low at this stage, in the distant hope that I can be pleasantly surprised.
I mean, sure... if we set aside every way in which it is not better, then I guess you could say it was better, setting those aside... but if that's what you're doing, then you're not saying anything of substance.
If we set aside all of the trees that are not red, then one could arguably say that all trees are red, as long as you set aside the non-red ones. Sure. Technically true, but not saying anything of substance.
I'm glad you're happy, honestly, this is said in mostly good humour - I'm glad there are folks out there enjoying this for what it is, and I wish I could find myself amongst them. I really wanted to.
Banter between NPC party members was definitely a strong point of both BG I & II. I think it is a tough writing challenge, because you don't want to have too little or too much. But when you hit that optimum balance, it really does provide a refreshing break from the tactical side of gameplay.
Banter between NPC party members was definitely a strong point of both BG I & II. I think it is a tough writing challenge, because you don't want to have too little or too much. But when you hit that optimum balance, it really does provide a refreshing break from the tactical side of game-play.
"You have such beautiful ... eyes." - Coran
Yes...balance.
They have done great with snark, bark, mockery, yelling, cruelty, ect, ect, ect... To whom will Larian look to bring equity to the scales? At this point it just may stay a gloomy world.
Oh and yes...now we have Barbarians to throw the "Barrels of Detonation".
-personally I like variety (even if I don't use it). Not an issue for me at all.
Adding something that is take it or leave it is fine...but there is a lot of "You ruined my favorite class or play-style, ect".
That is NOT good. They failed to understand and reach the target audience (it was just too foreign for them).
They failed to understand and reach the target audience (it was just too foreign for them).
You would think their target audience should pretty obvious, considering the game is a sequel to an old, semi-dead IP and uses D&D 5e for its foundation. But then you have all the streamlining, D:OS'isms, bizarre house rules, etc., and you have to really wonder.
They failed to understand and reach the target audience (it was just too foreign for them).
You would think their target audience should pretty obvious, considering the game is a sequel to an old, semi-dead IP and uses D&D 5e for its foundation. But then you have all the streamlining, D:OS'isms, bizarre house rules, etc., and you have to really wonder.
D:OS1&2 was more succesful other D&D and Infinity like titles (Pillars, Pathfinder, Solasta) so it makes total sense to aim for Larian's larger, established playerbase and try to expand it through use of an IP. Baldur's Gates were a massive hit 20 years ago, and while some of the folks are still gaming, a big chunk of Larian's audience will be a new crowd.
When I play BG3 I don't compare to or think of Divinity. I think of BG1&2. While BG3 is an ambitious game with high production value, there are still important things missing compared to the original games.
The feeling of exploration. The theme park map of BG3 where locations are too close to eachother doesn't evoke a similar feeling of scope and exploration I had in the previous games. Going off the path or being lost in the wilderness doesn't happen, and convenient teleport runes are literally everywhere.
The lack of night and day dynamics is another big one. It's hard to get immersed in a world where night or weather doesn't even exist.
So while the leap from DOS2 might seem big, the leap from BG1&2 not so much, and in some areas the leap was backwards.
D:OS1&2 was more succesful other D&D and Infinity like titles (Pillars, Pathfinder, Solasta) so it makes total sense to aim for Larian's larger, established playerbase and try to expand it through use of an IP. Baldur's Gates were a massive hit 20 years ago, and while some of the folks are still gaming, a big chunk of Larian's audience will be a new crowd.
With the the death of Gary Gygax, D&D stoped making it's annual PC games and went back to focusing on table-top.
They did bring in a new generation of fans who learned to play with 5e.
It was popularized by shows like Critical Roll, and online table-top hosting platforms like Roll20 and Fantasy Grounds.
If Larian had taken a hard look at what had made BG1 and 2 successful (what basic elements were expected to be there), and what the younger 5e crowd would expect from a turn-based PC game, the DOS crowd would absolutely have not been excluded. They were going to take the journey into this new game regardless.
I may be wrong, but I get the distinct impression that Larian actually let their game engine (a non-corporal thing) make some decisions for them.
I can't speak for TT crowd, I am completely not in the know. I wonder, how many TT players would happen to have beefy PCs capable of running BG3. If feels to my like budget, graphically humble titles like Pathfinder might be better fits for that demographic.
To answer the OP's question, not really. Gameplay feels different, but similar enough, and as for presentation, I bet you could take screenshots from both games and a lot of people would be hard pressed to tell them apart. There are aspects like the change in cinematic approach, but those aren't things important to me in this type of game, so I don't even think about them. It's like, I KNOW there are a lot of changes, but it doesn't really FEEL like it to me.
Yeah, I am not a big fan of snarky dialog options. I guess that would be one of my biggest complaints about the EE version of BG II, is that a lot of the new character interaction dialogs give you little choice but a snarky response. I may be misquoting a bit, but here are some examples:
to Hexxat/Clara: "Well good luck in getting there" to helpful man: "Get lost" to Rasad: "No, and I am not about to."
I don't mind that those options are there, but I felt like many of those EE dialog options were missing the kind of "voice" that I wanted to have for my PC. The exchange with Tad in the BG II Pit of the Faithless area is a great example of the kind of dialog options I do like to have.
I played BG3 with some friends, we all loved it and finished the early access. We then played Divinity 2 and all of them dropped it after only one session. So I'd say BG3 is definitely an improvement for some.
The TT crowd just have to download the Fantasy grounds client and have Discord running, but there is no demographic beyond, I want to try a roll play group.
The Dungeon Master, has to have the full licensed version, which allows anyone to try it out at no cost. It ranges from teenagers, a lot of college students, military, to older veterans.
The moding community's dedication to the 5e rule set clearly shows that this community was far bigger than one would imagine. The system works if you stick to it.
I am very satisfied that mods check the 5e box very well...for the most part. BG1 and 2 were in the 3.5 era, and they were expected to be faithful to that system (which they were).
Question for thought: Why is it that the moding community understands what the fans want, but Larion Studios does not?
