Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - General Annoyances/Complaint aside, does anyone else feel that BG3 is an insane leap from DOS:2?

Answering the OP's question, with statements that back up why they are giving the answer that they are, and for which reasons, is not going off topic - it is precisely ON topic.

The OP posed a question - A very loaded and biased question, to be sure, but a question all the same. If the question was ONLY meant to be answered in the affirmative, then they should not have posed the thread as a question in the first place. By all means, make a thread that is specifically about focusing on the elements that you like and request when posting it that folks who don't like the things that you like, or don't agree, to leave the thread alone - that's fine, welcomed even. But if you pose a thread asking a question, don't get shirty at other forum members for answering it.

Most of the regular posters here, who are still here after this amount of time, and still providing feedback, are doing so because they genuinely want the game to be good, and are genuinely not satisfied with what they have seen so far, enough so that they want to do *whatever* they can to hopefully improve the things that are dissatisfying, no matter how futile the effort seems. Those who have long since discarded their rose-tinted spectacles can see that there is far more that is sub-par about this game than is good, and generally they're past the point of giving gentle, soft-spoken let-downs when asked about it.

This is hilarious. So, I get called out for "missing context" all the time, and yet, here you are, deliberately ignoring the context, in order to justify "but we have to squeak so we get greased"... What part of "Annoyances/Complaint aside" implies that annoyances and complaints should be what you're posting? Entitlement? Rage? "I want more 5e, but only the stuff I like"? Will it be enough if you manage to drive all the "naysayers" off the forums completely? That's what I was responding to, after all, the OP, driven out of their own thread by the mob. Congratulations?

Hey, wait a minute. Wasn't it you that was trying to call me out for bullying GM4Him, when I was actually agreeing with their post, but didn't just say "yeah"? I think it was, actually. In a thread about any character being able to use another class's abilities, where I instead said "if there isn't a narrative reason for it, it needs to be fixed". So, what's changed that now you find "bullying" acceptable? Whether or not you agree with what's presented? Whether or not you can squeak enough to get some grease?

The sad part of this is that, instead of removing the off-topic posts, and admonishing the offenders, the thread will just get locked. But hey, we can't have anything positive floating around, it might make the squeaky wheels feel marginalized. We can't have that, even if it means marginalizing someone else, right?

I definitely agree that BG3 is a huge leg up from DOS2. It's a shame to see so many people ignore the actual point of this thread to complain about unrelated things but as usual negative opinions about anything will always be said louder than those with positive opinions. I absolutely adore this game, even though some of the mechanics may be 'not very DND' - solely from the perspective of a Larian game (which BG3 is, it's a Larian game first) almost every aspect of BG3 is an improvement from DOS2.

No, I don't thing that BG3 is a huge imporvement over DOS2 (which I find average, by the way). Mostly because DOS2 was it's own thing and here we have an abomination which doesn't know what it is.

And even if BG3 was a great leap from DOS2, this wouldn't be a good thing. BG3 should be it's own thing, I think, not an improvement of another series. Like let's say Dragon Age should not be an improvement of Mass Effect. Annoyances/Complaints aside.

I DO happen to think Baldur's Gate 3 is a massive step in the right direction from DOS 1 and 2, incidentally.

First things first, there's the immediately noticeable step up in production value (which means more eye candy, better graphics, fully voice acted dialogue, better models, etc).
I'm all in favor of the switch to this more "realistic" visual style, too, and if anything I just wish Larian went all in on this instead of keeping mixing things at will, without apparent continuity.

I even like [most of] the so called "cinematic dialogues". I find they add a lot of personality to the characters, even the minor ones.
I know that some people here hate them and think they are the scourge of this game's existence, but I don't give a shit. Sue me.

And given the sheer amount of permutations the game seems to keep track of, it seems clear that it's not like Larian is sparing budget on that area only to voice less lines, either.
Then again I like to set for what I think are reasonable standards, so I don't take personal offense when that one dialogue option I was hoping to use is not there.

There's also the fact of how, by embracing a pre-existing system, this game already managed to leave behind some of the most grating aspects of DOS, like one of the worst itemizations I've ever experienced in the entire genre.
BG3 also comes without the dysfunctional Armor System, which counts as an improvement in itself.

Oh, and good fucking riddance, Lucky Charm.
Man, I wish I could say the same about the control system.

They've made some great leaps in some directions, but overall a massive leap? No.

DOS2 was a pretty good game in lots of ways. BG3 looks like it will be too. To be a massive leap means it would be really really good. And I'm not sure it'll get there fully.

It'll still be a decent game, but so was DOS2.

Yes, in the vein of staying on topic, here are ways that BG3 improved over DOS2:
-Visual storytelling: The addition of cinematics and an improved zoom feature, combined with improved graphics, are excellent. It is a much more immersive RPG experience. Paired with this development is the fact that Larian has more of a story to tell now, with body language, facial expressions, branching dialogues with rolls, etc.
-Exploration Mechanics: The mechanics of exploration were quite limited in DOS2, with a good teleport getting you most places. By reigning in the player and providing diverse terrain, one is forced to jump, climb, teleport, and walk (and hopefully do other things, eventually) to traverse the terrain. The addition of having rolls in the world is also a plus to exploration.
-Story Progression: The camp has been a nice way to progress the story between the characters independent of the events in the world.
-Depth of Experience: The style of gameplay promoted by 5e in the form of rolls and dialogue is very fun, and Larian has implemented it well, independent of combat. I would say there is more to find in the world and more to do in it that isn't fighting.

Aside from these points, I would say BG3 and DOS2 are actually very comparable experiences, but the combat was certainly snappier in DOS2. There are certain areas where BG3 feels confused, as a half-DND half-DOS2 hybrid. There are other areas where it has clearly gone well beyond what DOS2 was capable of doing.

Showing my age a bit here but bg1 and 2 were based off 2nd edition ad&d ( i grew up playing 1E and 2nd)

NWN 1 and 2 were based off 3.5 perhaps you were thinking of those games.

I tried playing DOS2 after BG3, it still feels like a good game, but BG3 is just something else. I think when a solid ruleset base like DnD 5e meets Larian's exceptional craftsmanship - anything can be made possible!

If only they wouldn't be fighting that ruleset but embracing it instead.

BG3 is still in a weird place between D&D and Larian's ideas what a video game "must have". That's why we have OP Shoves overriding the 5e combat system and unlimited Long Resting messing up class balance. And the Origin characters instead of focusing on a player created D&D character for protagonist.

I wasn't even ableto get through the first two or three hours of DOS2, so yeah, BG3 is better. It wasn't even that I disliked DOS2, there was just a weird something about it that put me off.

Aren't origin characters just a video game interpretation of pregenerated characters that exist in DnD? Some people are just not very creative when it comes to characters and could use a solid story already prepared for them. As for the other concerns - I enjoy BG3 and I enjoy DnD. They are not the same in my head and it brings me much joy to be spared of this inner struggle because of shoves and stealthes etc.

Not that I'm aware of. The origin characters are completely Larians invention. I think there are one shot adventures in DnD with pregen characters, but DnD is in my observation the game, where people are most inclined to make their own characters.

No!
Pregenerated characters in other RPG are just a set of stats, class race and so on for new players who are not so familiar with the system so they can select a player character that is not complete crap (hopefully so, but they are usually not optimized). The game does not react to your background, so story wise it makes no difference if you select a pre generated char or create a custom one. The game may react to your race, class and sex but not to that pre generated char specifically.

Origin characters have their own personal quests and they are part of the game world, so you will meet people who know them (them as in this specific origin char, not you as generic main char)

Personally I dislike the origin system. I will be irritating when you play char X (lets say Gale) as main char in a specific way and the next time he will act totally different as companion.

Yeah, it's better than DOS 2. Better visuals, no armour system, cinematics, and hopefully the story is better than the splice retcon mess DOS 2 had.

DOS 2 combat became sleepwalking once you get experience with the game. No matter the enemies or encounter, you open with the same sequence and you will win.

BG3 at least has some random elements with initiative rolls even within the team and you don't know if your attacks/spells will land.

I have 600+ hours in DOS 2 and I would say I have no desire to play more.

to be fair 600 hours is pretty substantial

This is part of my problem with DOS 2 as well. I love BG3, but I'm struggling with DOS 2.

The setting and races and magic and characters are all kinda creepy and weird. I'm still trying to give it a shot, but like I said, it's a bit challenging. Cannibal elves for starters. They EAT people to gain their memories? Eek. Sorry. That puts me off. Elves have always been graceful, elegant beings, but in DOS 2 they are flesh eating memory thieves who can pry into people's pasts. I normally like to be elves, but I couldn't bring myself to do it in that game. I MUCH more prefer elves in BG3 (say what you like that they are humans with ears, they at least aren't emaciated, creepy cannibals). The fact that I can carry around with me people's severed heads and legs and arms and have an elf eat them just...

Then there are the lizards. Lizards are cocky in general, but Red Prince is over the top. I tried to like him, but I find him insulting and I have a hard time caring about trying to help him reclaim his empire.

Dwarves seem like the best race, because most humans are jerks too. So far, most dwarves I've met seem friendly, and I like Beast okay. Lohse is my favorite origin character with Beast and Ifan coming in second. Jury's not in about either yet.

In short, I'm having the hardest time liking anyone (except for Lohse who has some Satan spirit in her, so I can't totally trust even her). Most characters, including Fane, Red Prince, Sebille, and the talking squirrel with his dead cat mount, are rude, cutting, insulting, and they make me not want to care about what happens to any of them. Even some of the children are brats and a good number of animals as well. Maybe it's just because I'm on the horrible Fort Joy island, but sheesh!

At least with BG3, I feel like it's more "normal". Monsters are, in general, the creepy and twisted ones, which is why they are monsters. Humans, dwarves, elves, halflings, tieflings, etc. are, for the most part, friendly. I mean, you still have some seriously rude people who I wonder why they have to be so rude, but it's nothing like the condescending and mean spirited people I've encountered in DOS 2. Even Astarion who puts a knife to our throats winds up at least trying to make light of it and joke with you about things. He doesn't continue to berate you and insult you... for the most part.

All this said, it would be nice if people like Pink Haired Tiefling gave us a bit more of a friendly welcome. Why on earth would she think we're from Zariel trying to get her soul coin back, and why would she be so hostile to people who just saved her from a bugbear assassin? I could see her being nervous and like, "Oh... um... you smell like the Hells. Are you... are you from there? Were you, perhaps, sent by someone?" Instead, she assumes we're from Zariel and is rude, mean and then for some reason says, "Now I feel sorry for you," in a sarcastic manner before she gives us the soul coin? Makes no sense.

Anyway, certain things that AREN'T better in BG3 are:

1. Item Management - Pretty much the same from what I can tell. So much stuff you pick up and waste time managing for no good reason. You don't NEED all that stuff because you can get by without it easily, and all you do with it is waste time trying to bounce it between people to avoid encumbrance, and then you sell it for gold - and it's usually not even all that much gold. I'd rather find more gold and less crap.

2. Resting - Neither game has a good resting mechanic system. I'm REALLY hoping Larian gives us a better Long/Short rest system. In fact, I'd say that at least DOS 2 had camps ON the game map - not some nebulous other plane of existence. But I will say this also for DOS 2. At least if you're going to make it so players should rest between every fight, DOS 2 doesn't even try to make it seem like you shouldn't. BG3 story makes it seem like you should long rest VERY infrequently, but then it has dialogue attached to long rest and makes it hard to not long rest between fights. Besides that, with no penalty for long resting, why not? (Camping supplies really doesn't limit this at all.)

3. The Map! The map in DOS 2 is WAY better than BG3. It makes sense and isn't meshing like 6 different World Map locations together into one.

I'll stop there. I think that's enough. In conclusion, BG3 is, for the most part, better than DOS 2. I CERTAINLY didn't have a problem getting through my first BG3 EA playthrough even when encounters were harder and I had to reload more. I WANTED to get to the end of it. DOS 2, not so much. I'm hoping it gets better as I keep pressing ahead. Still, there are a few items that DOS 2 does better, and a few not so good things that BG3 has inherited from DOS 2 that I hope they get rid of - like useless Item Management.

Spot on…

Anyway, it’s a Larian thing. Like the stubbornly bad bubblegum-linked party members. They won’t change that. It’s part of their ‘creative identity’ now.

What I do disagree with is the black-and-white-isation of monsters = evil and everyone else = good. Hard pass for me. When we get AI-generated stories – and they’re already knocking about – this is the kinda tripe they’ll devise, because they’ve no facility for sussing out human beings as only humans can.

The best writers give you ‘complex’ characters who are pulled from their experiences/observations in reality: the fact that all humans are hypocritical in some fashion – contradictory and bias and convinced they’re the stars of their own show. It’s what makes the human animal such an interesting subject: everyone, even Hitler, is/was convinced that they’re doing the right thing, and anyone who disagrees with them is the enemy.

A good writer never takes sides. He/she is able to distance themselves from the characters they create, and simply let them be their raw contradictory selves. Bad writers think in terms of good and evil – they’ve mistakenly assumed they’re an authority on what both mean.

To write good characters, you must be able to ‘understand’ everyone’s point of view, and must never take sides. You must become the characters, Daniel-Day-Lewis-style, and invest in their biases as though they are your own.

That’s what gives you that ‘spark’ from the text – when the writer is really committed to every character they write, especially when they’re in disagreement, and they don’t take sides.

That’s difficult, because it’s psychologically challenging. Few can pull this off.

But an AI would likely be good at devising some wacky plot, scuppered from various fantasy clichés of a ‘dark god/dark one’, potentially imprisoned or ‘retired’ in some fashion and now re-emerging to challenge the hero. It’s because it has no ability to understand humans on a complex level, so they’re all just plot-points after that.

BG3, basically.

CD Projekt Red’s games are the only recent games where I see good character-driven writing in action. Forgot to mention that the last time. The Witcher 2/3 and, yes, the much-maligned Cyperpunk have excellently written characters – for video games.

Like I mentioned previously, Judy was so convincing and cool, she was actually pretty hot! Never before have I thought of a makey-up creation like that, be it books, TV or games. And you can’t even ‘romance’ her – haha. But unlike some, that’s not a big deal to me. I just appreciate the good writing.

Lastly, BG2’s Irenicus had great character-building, even as far back as BG1, where he cursed that woman and turned her into a bloated spider-creature out of vindictiveness. What fascinates me, more than plot, is why we’re all so full of ourselves, really, every one of us, in our individual ways – and yet we somehow haven’t eaten each other alive. Yet.

You have a fair point in general, about good/bad writing approach, but can you please connect it to some specifics from BG3? Where are we taught on the part of good and evil specifically? And what are those characters that are predefined as good or bad?

Here’s a few off-hand. Minthara. Ludicrously ‘evil’, and unbelievably in-your-face about it. I don’t have quotes, but think back on the scene – she really pushes the comic-book evil persona.

The illithids. The ‘bad guys’ are the overly evil illithids you encounter everywhere. No attempt to disguise it. Then the ‘good illithid’ (the guy in the underdark) is too ‘good’ – he’s too ‘pure’. That’s blandly black and white.

It’s been a while since I played it, but the red hobgoblin and Minthara and the goblins have very, from what I remember, one-sided ‘evil’ motivations for assaulting the druids. There’s no sense of any conflict of interests where there’s an interesting ‘grey area’ that might make you stop and think about choosing sides. So siding with Minthara and co. is clearly the ‘evil path’.

The writing is so forgettable that I can’t remember what the druids are about. But Halsin is an overly virtuous – noble, infallible, mallet-over-the-head good guy.
I think there’s some ‘dark druids’ or something in the grove as well, but from what I recall they’re so patently ‘evil’ as well that there’s no nuance to it.

If I was writing the story, Halsin would be a bit of a conman – smooth-talking, ‘noble’ druid who despises ‘abominations’ such as the goblins. He’s trying hard to sell you on the fact that they look like monsters and want to eat humans. But he’s also a genuine gent to his ‘own kind’, the druids: he will fight for them to the bitter end.

Meanwhile, in ‘monster land’, I’d put Minthara as an embittered Drow who has experienced racial hatred ‘on the surface’, but is conflicted about going all-in on killing everyone because of it. She doesn’t like what she’s come across, but she at least gives you a few stories about how she’s been messed around with by the surface-dwellers. Plus, her culture is to take no prisoners. Interesting, but needs some ‘internal conflict’.

Red hobgoblin and goblin crew in general likewise have seen some hatred because of how they ‘look’. They’re angry. And they’ve been spat upon.
But some of the goblins have genuinely also stolen from the druids, attacked them and even tried to rape them.

And some of the druids – some – have retaliated by capturing goblins and torturing them.

Minthara, despite being a ‘victim’, has also given in to her hatred a few times and murdered some of the druids and their children (you hear about this later).
Presented with the above, where there’s no black and white, who do you choose?

IMO, it would make the different paths more interesting, because no one – like all of us, let’s be honest – is a saint or a devil.