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 : )

Edit:

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.

I... really kind of don't, no.

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.

Complaints/annoyances aside…except from Niara.

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.

DOS and Forgotten Realms are to completely different combat systems. so yes.

It is a huge step forward for Larian in their own personal growth.


Unfortunately they were not ready to be a 3rd party developer, and come into someone else's instinctual property and do it justice.

Bioware didn't bring elements of Baulder's Gate in to Mass Effect.

Retraction

Let's try again: Bioware did not bring elements of Baldur'e Gate to Mass Effect beyond a sensual wink.

To be clear...I refer more to the mindset than the barrels.

The barrels were just the obvious thing to point to when people couldn't quite put a finger on what was soooo different.

Yeah, the "barrels" were way different in BG 1 and 2:

https://baldursgate.fandom.com/wiki/Arrow_of_Detonation

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.

"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).

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.

Quote:

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.


"No, no, I get it. Hard to even find the words."

- "They messed with my Hamster". :O

BTW my money supported DOS.

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?

It is, absolutely.

Larion deserves that bit of praise.

How to truly describe the current BG3 experience:


The steak is cooked to perfection and the mashed taters reminds me of grandma's secret recipe.

...however...the sweatsock tea, the cockroach crunchies, and the booger salad are kinda spoiling my apatite.

I love companion banter and cinematic dialogue as well! I am glad these are in BG3!😊

Those are both awesome sauce.

The banter between characters is spot on, even if the individual origin characters have abrasive elements on their own.

There’s a slight whiff of reddit off this post OP. If that doesn’t make sense, no bother at all… But I don’t share your starry-eyed optimism – and I wish I did: sounds like a pleasant drug. It’s been years since I’ve played a game that invoked what you describe. I’ve tried a few modern titles, and borderline enjoyed them for at most two thirds – but usually half – of the game, and then my brain just roped me back into reality, which these days is a lot more ‘grindy’ than any video game (keep saving up and then splurge it all on the next ‘house feature/upgrade’).

I do see the psychological appeal of games like Valheim: start off as a penniless nobody, slowly accumulate resources, get creative, build, build, build – and the brain probably gives you that dopamine fix from the castle you end up carving out when all's done. Except I get it from reality now, in that respect, and it would feel self-defeating IMO, at this point in my life, to play a game which merely apes that particular fix from building up a phony pixel-house bit-by-bit.

Hollow Knight brought back a sense of childlike wonder that I hadn’t experienced from games in years. Death thrash, likewise, has that implacable ‘magic’, but is only EA. These two games, and only these, lately struck me as ‘art’, in the way certain old games struck me as art: games like BG1 and in particular BG2.

What I mean by that is they’re clearly passion-projects. Hollow Knight, in particular, released tonnes and tonnes of free incredible DLC, which must have taken yonks to put together. And they only sold the base game for something like 5 quid. Death Thrash has the same vibe. It’s being put together by a small group of devs who probably enjoy making the thing more than gamers enjoy playing it.

I don’t see BG3 as sharing anything in common with what I’ve just described. It may be because the company is too huge now. There are too many chefs, too many creatives, so the lowest common denominator wins out to keep the peace. The end result strikes me as this very safe product: polished but vacuous, a kind of high-budget bubble-gum. Like a Marvel film. Lots of big boom moments that dazzle and disappear like fireworks over a fun but forgettable festival.

BG3 doesn’t have the Hollow Knight magic, or the Death Thrash magic – and it doesn’t have the BG1/2 magic. That’s just my take on it. I’d play this thing once, and I’d try and get through to the end – but I’ll probably only get two thirds of the way.

Which, like I mentioned, is an endorsement in itself these days.

Ah wells, at least some folk will enjoy it. And sure there’s always a target audience for Fane/Astarion memes and artwork, which Larian is sure to milk in every twitter post going forward.

I certainly feel that way! I am extremely impressed with BG3, complaints and issues aside. <3

Because fans are not monolithic.

In other words, not everyone likes what you like. Larian is catering to a broader audience than just you and the folks who tend to agree with you.

Mods cater to niche groups.

Sidenote: maybe if they had some less ‘spectacular’ characters, and a few more familiar grumps from reality, I might feel more connected to the game, in the way some of Hollow Knight’s characters remind you of certain cantankerous no-hopers, embittered and war-faring in their trite and cyclical way. Like the brilliant Zote, who’s so utterly pompous, ridiculous and inept. Yet convinced he’s right about everything.

Imagine, say, someone like Zote who thinks his ideas are ingenious, even if they’re patently weak-sauce and slight. But he goes and attacks everyone else who has an idea that might actually become ‘something’.

This is the kind of thing that consistently riles Zote in the game – he’s comedic in the most brilliant way. Completely delusional and utterly lacking in self-awareness – what he hates the most is the possibility that someone else’s ‘bright bulb moment’ might actually be endorsed. So that’s his first line of attack: spittle-flecked slander of the idea that affronts him. And he just keeps working himself up from there, until he’s no longer even coherent.

So funny.

There’s just nothing ‘organic’ like that in BG3. All the characters are plot-pots, broiling with MacGuffins.

The 5e group is not a niche group. 5e is the current rule-set that is the standard for all current D&D campaigns. Everyone else would not have known the difference had they followed the blueprint.

We wouldn't have division at all, and people who don't understand "what the big deal is", would still be having fun.


...and yes, EVERYONE else who has played the current version of D&D likes what I like.


Let's keep in mind that the only reason that Larion Studios did not follow the blueprint, have a day / night cycle, a decent interface, or solved minor problems in a timely manner is because they don't know how.

It was "too difficult", "can't figure how to make this work with multiplayer", and so on.

It is absolutely not because they didn't want to...they just weren't good enough to pull it off.


On that note, the game is in "orange phase", and I am sure they cannot complete it fast enough. Feedback at this point is in fact pointless.


Final verdict:

BG3 is the best Larian Studios game ever made, and also the worst Baldur's Gate game ever made.

Not entirely true. For some cases (Shove for example) it would be extremely easy to stick with the blueprint. Here they just did not want to. Probably to make it more larianish.

Hopefully the modders can/will fix it. At least with mods we can get close to having a real D&D game...

Back on topic:

In some parts BG 3 is certainly a vast improvement from D:OS 2, e.g. party banter and cinematics. But in many ways it isn't and pretty much feels D:OS with a D&D skin, e.g. everyone and their dog having flashy ability Vfx.

No doubt about it, BG3 is a massive improvement over DOS2 in several areas. Characters, storytelling, believability of the environments are much improved over DOS2.

Except not really, IMO. As many others stated, DOS2, despite being ho-hum in the writing dept, had a solid identity with the game mechanics. It was Larian-unleashed, all fire and ice and environmental mayhem – and it was quite brilliant and unique in that respect. There’s nothing out there like it.

BG3 remains confused, as others have rightly pointed out – is it Larian or is it DND?

The shove is very Larian – and the most game-breaking-ly OP mechanic in the whole game.

In its current form, it’s a cheat code that some will say you don’t have to use. Except it’s ‘there’. Why put a cheat in plain view? And it is, because I’ve used not only the standard shove but the ‘arrow shove’ (whatever it’s called) to completely trivialise combat by just knocking opponents off a cliff or a boat, comic-book style.
The environments were excellent, I agree – until Patch 8. See Crimsonrider’s topic for more details. They ruined the best thing they had going, this late in development. Which is not a good sign.

I don’t like the plot-pot characters – no complexity, just ‘extraordinary’ gimmicks. I’ll pass on that, cheers.

We’ve gone the whole way through Act 1 and everyone is calm as a cucumber the whole time, even though apparently they’re aware there’s a worm in their heads that might mutate them into some kind of mess.

Okey-dokey.

There’s a few mentions of the generically named ‘Absolute’. The Dead Three was much more evocative, but yeah let’s go with ‘The Absolute’. Will it be a god that wants to destroy the world?

You never know, I guess.

It's visually better then BG3, but still feels the same. All flash and little substance. I will most likely ignore the companions and solo play the game as I don't feel connected to them at all, just like DOS2. It's kind of sad knowing Tav is a blank slate of a character and still feels more real than the written origin ones.

Man, OP tries to make a thread talking about what they enjoy about the game and almost the entire thread is nothing but people saying what they hate about it. The negativity here is suffocating sometimes.

+1

Well, he started the thread asking what others think. Maybe as I tend to favour smaller titles anyway, studio upscaling and raising production value doesn't impress me that much.

I am keeping quiet from this point on, I didn’t expect my thread to turn into this.

Sorry! I am a bit too frustrated with the title to pat it on the head.

Nah, don't do that. As much as negative feedback is valuable, so too is positive feedback. The people that are going off topic to what you intended believe that it is their responsibility to be a "squeaky wheel", so anything that attempts to assert some positivity must be crushed. If you're overall having a good time, and like some of what you see, by all means point it out.

Inb4 "so we can't offer up negative feedback": By all means, in one of the thousands of threads that exist for exactly that purpose, instead of going off topic in threads that aren't focused on those issues. As suggested by The Composer in another thread that followed the same pattern here.

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.

I disagree, and I suspect you haven't seen as much of her character as there is to offer.

If you go the "romance" route with Minthara, you have the opportunity to connect with her and see into her thoughts. Within, there's an expression of fear and vulnerability. It gives you a new insight into her character.


For all we know there are multiple factions of illithids pursuing varying agendas, some of which could certainly be more nuanced than you're giving them credit for.


I can't help but feel like you're jumping to conclusions based on your own bias. In other words, you seem to expect a certain level of writing and thus fill in a lot of blanks.

The illithid in question once partnered with a lich, offering the undead creature souls while it took the brains. Even now, the illithid has to satisfy his appetite, and though he searches for a solution, he still eats the brains of living, sentient creatures. This is a conflict in his character that is, in my opinion, undeniably interesting.


They are searching for the weapon that the Absolute has commanded them to find. I can see players joining them in an attempt to get closer to the cult and find out more from within. I can even see some of the characters, like Astarion, joining them because they are embracing the powers offered by the Absolute. For Astarion, after all, those powers mean freedom from his former master.


I dare say a lot of folks don't remember Shakespeare from school, but that doesn't exactly make it bad writing.


Again, I don't think you're looking too deeply into the story and considering what's going on around the edges. I suspect, for instance, that Halsin may be partially responsible for what happened with Ketheric Thorm and the Shadow Cursed lands. Which he is now trying to put right by joining whatever group he can, whether that be the player characters or Aradin's Beno Boys.


To my understanding, the Shadow Druids are a group that believe the growth of society harms nature. Cities and cutting down trees and so on.

In the case of BG3, the Shadow Druids specifically warned Kagha of the armies coming... the drow and the goblins and the gnolls... and told Kagha that the best way to protect the grove was to use the Rite of Thorns, to seal the grove off from the coming darkness and bloodshed. That's why she's acting the way she is: to protect her people.

First of all, let me point out that D&D was historically made based on alignment. Goblins bad. Elves good.

Secondly, I think Larian has done a pretty good job at sticking with a blend of the old but also letting you know that just because someone is of a "bad" race, they aren't necessarily bad. Here are just a few examples:

Omeluum the mind flayer

Blurg the hobgoblin

Some of the duergar like Kith the mason and his apprentice

If you side with Minthara, you discover she may have another side to her that maybe isn't so terrible

The Iron hand gnomes are actually almost like terrorists once you learn more about them. They're not exactly good.

I actually agree somewhat with JandK. I think there's a twist to Halsin we don't know.

He was too eager to come to Moonrise. I've always thought that Larian is waiting to drop some big secret about him.

Ah, here’s the guy that saying other people were ‘bitching’ on another thread for expressing an opinion.

Nice to have a reaction from you at last bud – I can definitely rate your opinion highly, given that you try to tear the throats off everyone on this forum, in your insipidly highfalutin way.

I’ve read all Minthara’s opening dialogues – you’d want to have the IQ of a gnat not to notice she’s pushing the evil agenda so hard it’s almost painful. Your stoic defence of her one-dimensional-ness is as much as I’d expect from one who’s whole attitude to forum debate is one-note slander of anyone who writes something you don’t like hearing.

Anyway, I’ve made my point, you’ve made yours. Hope you don’t write any books any time soon pal, that’s all I’m saying.


‘First off’ let me point out that whether it’s called DnD or anything else, it’s a story mate. And all good writers do this thing called ‘thinking outside the box’ – not within it, which is what you seem to prescribe.

What was Irenicus again? An elf, from what I remember. Didn’t seem like such a nice elf, did he? Maybe that's why he actually seemed interesting and not some cliché like evil-Drow Minthara.

I’m only in my 30s – you’d think old boys like yourselves (correct me if I’m wrong) would have seen more of ‘real life’ to know people don’t just act like ultra-good elves or ultra-evil Mintharas.

Actually, both Minthara and Dror Raggzlin (the hobgoblin) have VERY! human motivations, which you can find out if you use detect thoughts on them. They both just want to please the absolute and seize power and authority. Ofc they are part of the potentially brainwashing cult, so we can't be sure if this is what they really desire. I think those true souls should be considered more as pawns with just a hint of their own alignment and personality, not full-scale characters, at least, not yet. True soul Nere on the other hand can be turned away from the Absolute by persuading him and exposing him to the truth and even Minthara in a certain sequence can violate a direct order from the absolute to kill you at camp. So not so sure about this whole aspect yet.

About Halsin, I think he is definately good in alignment, but he comes with a twist of a cunning mind. I find his philosophy and character convincing. If you kill Kagha, he plays politics and assigns an expatriate to lead the grove, because he thinks that it is corrupt on many levels. And he can't hold it by himself because he is selfish to leave the grove and pursue his own goals near the moonrise towers. That leads me to a thought that being good is not bad and being bad is not bad (jokes aside). Because you can't be either 100% and the game portrays it always OK, but sometimes not great. I'll give this a second look in my next playthrough.

Wow, all of the opening dialogues? All of them? Goodness, I guess your opinion is informed.


I don't recall defending her as being one dimensional. In fact, I remember quite the opposite, suggesting that she is not one dimensional.

LOL. You remember it as being so, therefore it is - self-awareness glitches kicking in again there, my amigo. Pro tip: there are others who might not share your view.

Minthara’s quoted dialogue for attacking the grove: ‘Tell me what you know. The Absolute will reward us with such power if we find this place.’

The full video

Even as a kid, if I heard a line like that from a villain I’d roll my eyes.

I rest my case.

I thinks JandK has some fair points, I liked his portrayal of the "good illithid" dilemma. Omeluum has an interesting book btw (have to kill him) which has a hint of how the illithid society works. And another thing that comes to my mind: humans eat animals. Are we evil in our own eyes because of it? I doubt it, but animals might not even have a definition of evil, so we are not necessarily evil to them also. This is a thing we can't judge for certain, because there are no other sentient species we can find tasty. But I think we would be evil for them xD

The only reason I said anything about d&d's origins was just to kind of point out that if they're creating scenarios with specific monsters as bad guys that is not something unheard of for D&D. That's kinda a D&D roots thing.

But you seem to have overlooked the other parts of what I said when I pointed out that bg3 doesn't seem to be holding true to the stereotypes of old D&D. I gave a few examples of them thinking outside the box and having monster races that aren't necessarily bad and even some typically good races who are doing some bad things like the gnomes in the underdark. Point was that I do think that they are being pretty good about it, not just sticking to the stereotypes. If anything, they've given every single character in this story a personality, even the evil goblins, so that you might feel guilty about just slaughtering them all.

I kinda miss the good old days when I DIDN'T have to feel guilty about killing bad guys in video games. I actually even feel guilty about killing the hag in this game. You bust into her home and kill her to see if this girl who pretty much asked to be messed over by the hag.

LMAO. Okey dokey.

Here's the 'genius' writing again:

‘Tell me what you know. The Absolute will reward us with such power if we find this place.’

Ahhhhh.

Ok, Minthara. You don't seem like a cartoon ripped from the mind of some washed-out hack. Your motives are so thought-provoking, like the name of your master, The Absolute. BTW, my 7 year old kid thinks The Absolute sounds naff AF. I hope the The Absolute is not able to retaliate - personally, I think it sounds naff as well. And really, 'such power'? Ah come now, that sounds shallow to me Minthara. What are ya even going to do with that, love?

Sigh.

Whether or not she is one dimensional is up for debate.

Whether or not I gave a "stoic defense of her one dimensional nature" is not. Because I didn't defend her as a one dimensional entity. I rejected the notion that she is one dimensional and pointed out that you don't know any more what you're talking about than a handful of lines from some opening dialogue.

You're attempting to give an in depth analysis of something you only have a cursory, shallow familiarity with.

QED

You didn't give any examples of how they think outside the box. I gave a very distinct example of how they don't. See above quote.

Ball's over to you.

Very thought provoking!
Rest well, we'll need our strength!

I provided one quote. I can provide dozens of others that prove she's an afterthought in terms of writerly effort. But first I challenge you this: provide one quote that proves she actually has depth. Must be easy, right?

Looking forward to it.

Speaking of, the hag has a really interesting Speak with Dead scene, in case you haven't seen it.

She talks about all the people who come to her, making the point that she doesn't hunt these victims down. There's such a bitterness for life in her voice. She talks about showing people their true nature.

“You know, I was gonna give you a swift kick up the arse and show you to the door…but I think you and I could have a bit of fun together" - the hag.

I’m Irish and the first sentence is a cliché, stock phrase from a bygone era over here. You really think this is original writing? LOL.

Lads, maybe stop playing games and read some books. Or even watch something with original lines, like The Wire or The Sopranos.

Also, the hobgoblin?

‘You – get to the grove. Help the drow Minthara kill the lot.’ – Red Hobgoblin, whatever his name is.

More gems from the BG3 writers – my 7 year old is still scoffing at it all. But all right, red guy has ‘depth’ does he, lol

The era must be so bygone that I can't find anything around the Internet! Btw, did you know that the whole "the Wire or the Sopranos" films are based on my neighborhood's folklore? But you surely can enlighten me with a quote or two, can't you? Please? xD
Dude this is hilarious..

Firstly, what in the hell - you tried to 'google' that phrase to prove me wrong? Oh shit... Ok pal - so ask any Irish person you know about that phrase: you're telling me I don't know an 'auld mammys' phrase from my own country, is that it? Seriously? Are you from Ireland - obviously not, because it's a cliche. You're telling an Irishman that he doesn't know what a cliche is from his own country because you googled it and didn't find it.

Think about that 'dude'.

Good sopranos

There's some good Sopranos lines, but what in the name of hell is your point about living in the same area as the series was shot?

What???

You directly influenced the quality of the Sopranos and The Wire because you lived there?

Haha.

Well shit. Tell me more about how that happened bro.

May be in the other universe where I am more witty, but in this one it seems you outsmarted me and everyone here 10 to 1!! So I might as well end this mighty off topic discussion and get some good ol sleep dude! But thanks for some good fun

At least you've a sense of humility! You'll go far in life with that - can't say the same for certain others here *cough, cough*. Have yourself a good sleep pal and enjoy your weekend

I actually love that scene. Really well done, I thought.

No thanks. I think I'm done now. I'm tired of trying to play ball with people on this forum who just want to catch it and do everything in their power to puncture it and ruin it. I said my peace. I gave examples. I refuse to sit here and argue with you.

I asked for dialogue quotes - neither you or Jando gave any. Just your own opinion that you think the writing is A1. You'd think if you were both so confident, you'd have no problem sharing examples. I shared many where it sounds extraordinarily lacking.

who just want to catch it and do everything in their power to puncture it and ruin it

What you're even talking about there, who even knows. Guess we'll never find out, because you bailed under questioning.

But IMO, it reads to me like a very upset kid who had their plastic toy duck burst by a horrible cat, and now it's 'punctured and ruined' and boo-hoo.

It was a metaphor, Kid. Lol. Like I'm so much older than you. Haha. It means you're just out here to argue, and I don't want to argue. I don't have to prove anything to you. Go check it out yourself and see what I'm talking about. I don't have time to track down quotes.

Omeluum is a mind flayer who isn't a stereotypical brain eating, mind controlling monster evil race person.

Blurg is his ally and friend, also not a thug warlord just out to crush skulls and eat humans.

The Iron hand clan are terrorists who want to blow up lots of people in Baldur's Gate.

Kith is a mason duergar looking for knowledge.

None of these people are stereotype evil because they are of a certain race.

I'm also thinking about the goblin cook who likes Volo. She's a bit outside the box. Every dang adult tiefling is Leave it Beaver parents, which is unusual and outside the stereotypical tiefling box.

Shoot! One thing Larian is not is stereotypical. I'd like a few more stereotypes please, so I feel at least a little in the world of Faerun.

Production value wise definitely a big step up, but those improvements would have been much much more impactful if they had just stuck with what they knew and made a true DOS 3 and never attempted to take on D&D and the BG series. The game is a bit of a confused mess.

Ah bless, the old ‘kid’ putdown – must be an American thing, is it? Over here, we call that condescending – it’s usually the last resort of someone who has no leg to stand on, so they get smarmy like that. You shot yourself in the foot there squire – you’d think, being all ‘grown up’, you’d have more sense of tact. Too many video games?

I apply that last sentence to your worryingly naïve synopsis of the various one-dimensional creatures you come across.

Exhibit A: ‘Omeluum is a mind flayer who isn't a stereotypical brain eating, mind controlling monster evil race person.’

Like I said, he’s just an overly ‘pure’ version of his kin – the yin to the yang. That’s only complex in a world where you can only see two colours: black and white. Your whole conception of characters seems to be built on DnD or comics – sheltered life is what I read from that.

I’ve worked with all the big names in the IT industry, and many, many different teams. I’ve witnessed every toxic environment, listened to every con artist, been exposed to all the wild and wonderful politics of those who schmooze and those who lose – you sound like someone who’s lived in a cave, and your patronising ‘kid’ putdown is like something you’d hear from a 10 year old. Are you not embarrassed?

You really think if you invert a stereotype, you’re being ‘creative’? Seriously mate?

Come back to me when you understand people and can actually imitate them in words. That’s a real writer. Not someone who simplistically says – ‘Well, you know the illithids were considered evil in DnD, but Larian made one of them actually good: it goes so against the stereotype, my mind just blew up and I’m still picking up the pieces. They’re geniuses.’

I’d hate to be ya, that’s my only thought on that.

Another one talking sense. There's a few of them there Gim4Him if ya look around...

Clearly you're an adult having a serious adult conversation here. Your time with all those big IT companies must have given you your great communication skills, they're on full display in this forum about a video game; such a degenerate pass-time.
I'm sorry someone mistook you for a child, throw another tantrum and maybe you'll seem more respectable.

Ok, sure let's remove all the 'adult' talk then mate.

'It was a metaphor, Kid'.

Since you can't actually engage with anything I wrote, riddle me this: how is calling someone a 'kid' being an 'adult'?

Last I checked, that was called being a snob. But you tell me how I'm wrong.

Come on, guys. Be better.

I was joking about the Kid thing. I even said I am not much older. I'm sorry you took it as an insult. It really wasn't meant as one.

Let's get back on topic. The topic really isn't about the creativity of Larian. It is about if the game is leaps and bounds better than DOS 2. And I say, it is. I'm playing DOS 2 now for the first time, and frankly, it's okay. I like it okay, but it's nothing compared to how much I like BG3. I've said it before, and I'll say it again. I've NEVER played a video game this much with so many replays, and it's just EA. 600+ hours and I think I am enjoying the Bard patch more than I did the highly anticipated Barbarian patch. I was SO looking forward to that one.

Still waiting for Half-Orc. Come on, Patch 9. Half orc and bigger body types. Smaller too. 😁

finally someone admitting bg3 actually a dos2 clone? /s. in all honesty i think game will be much more awesome if it's indeed dos3 or actually baldur's gate settings but not using dnd5e ruleset. i can't recall dos2 having so bad misses early to mid game. even solasta have the same annoying miss rate.

Well, the problem is that the fans are the minority, and Larian is only interested in making money - which won't be as much if they only cater to the fans/minority, unfortunately. So, they instead cater to the unwashed masses, which is unfortunate (for us fans, aka the minority). Very corporate, but that's what happens after a company gets too far above indy status.

Tis a bit off topic, but I'll answer with my opinion.

Your question is a bit extreme. I've looked at quite a number of mod potentials for BG3, and many do not appeal to me. I'm a fan of D&D 5e and Forgotten Realms, but there are not a lot of mods that I like.

My point is that there are too many variations for Larian to make everyone happy. I've had many discussions/arguments on this forum with many different people who are all really devoted fans. JandK LOVES BG3 shove mechanics, for example. Me and others hate shove mechanics. Should Larian cater to JandK or me? Reaction prompts. JandK hates them as do others. But Tuco and Ragnarok REALLY want prompts, as does Saito and many others. I'm on the fence and trying to come up with a compromise.

There are many other examples I could give. The point is that there isn't some vast majority solution for LOTS of game mechanics. Opinions vary too much. Thus, modders fill in the gaps.

Speaking of Mods are you playing with any on DOS 2. There are a number of excellent ones that really improve the experience.

Nope. Wanted the pure Dos 2 experience.

OP, first I had a kind of gasping, how dare you to say something with a generally positive vibe on this forum?

But yes, I concur and I would not only prefer BG3 to D:OS 2 in any aspect, I would even say that BG3 in itself is/will be a good game!

Hi, I'm twice your age, and yes, you are correct, people don't always act ultragood/evil. However, I have also seen enough of life to know that sometimes people do. I've seen enough to know that sometimes, they can be trying to be "good", and wind up hurting more than they help. I guess the real world is a classic example of "bad writing"?