Larian Studios
Posted By: mr_planescapist How does BG3 compare to BG2? - 18/10/20 11:44 AM
What are your impressions of the current state of BG3 compared to BG2 (NOT DOS2, NOT D&D 5e...) Story, characters, items, magic, dialogue, combat, atmosphere etc...Is it more fun/interesting , challenging, deep...?
Posted By: Nicottia Re: How does BG3 compare to BG2? - 18/10/20 12:01 PM
I would say it's too early to judge. We've only got most of act 1, there are still areas that are part of act 1 but you can't access them as of yet... which isn't even equivalent to full reign of Athkatla, close but not there. I would say BG3 is closer to DAO, than BG2, but it's got potential.

So far I enjoy it, but it's got some flaws, bugs etc. Like main story is left under a big mysterious question mark, we got some leads and that about it. Combat, as a long term fan of real time with pause is actually quite enjoyable, don't need to spam space bar so often and you can technically play the fights out with one hand only. wink

The companions are cool, but very polarizing. You either love some of 'em or you hate them (and they hate you). What I personally don't like about the companions are the origin stories, they're all a bit too special and overshadow the custom made player character by a landslide. Atmosphere wise, this game reminds me a lot of NWN2, the hell looks like hell and is amazing, although I would tone down the color palette of the entire game to be a tiny bit darker. Cause yes, the graphics are stunning, BUT it's all so colorful and bright, notable exceptions being the hell, the bog and the Underdark.
Posted By: robertthebard Re: How does BG3 compare to BG2? - 18/10/20 12:23 PM
Caveat: I played BG 2 from BG, so I was already invested in the characters when I started BG 2.

That said, it's Early Access, so some of what I'm about to lay out is to be expected as they iron out polish and optimization. So I'm getting occasional freezes, even when just walking around in the environment. My cooling fans get to kicking hard after about 30 minutes, even after messing with the settings to try to tone it down. The combat is all over the place. Some encounters seem really easy, and others really hard. Some of this is down to the dice rolls, which is to be expected, it is, after all, based on dice rolls. I've been one shotted by a particular mob, and then had it miss so much that it seems like it's dice were loaded. Same mob, same party. I don't know that I can say "more fun", but it is fun. However, that's because I was way invested in BG 2, more than anything in particular with this game. But there are reasons outside of the game in general for that. Suffice to say it got me through a really bad time in my life, and call it good.

There is plenty of depth, it's not just a mindless button mashing style of game, which is great. The magic is similar, but not the same. That's going to come down to a different rule set. There are some nice magical items, but so far it's been relatively tame, as in the "good stuff" isn't dropping like candy, but is available, if you look for it. Shops do carry some +1 items, but it's not a case of "get to this town, and everyone will be fully equipped" because you made so much gold on the vendor items that you just buy it all. A lot of it just isn't there, but is, instead, out in the world, encouraging you to actually explore the map to find them.

The story is abbreviated, but we're only working in Act 1, so that's a given. It's an interesting premise, however, and does have me curious as to where it's going to go. The dialog has been good. It can be heavily reliant on dice rolls too, even if there's a "No Fail" type condition, it will still make you roll, perhaps that will be looked at in the coming months. I like that the Origin characters aren't automatically fawning over the Player Character. I suspect that that will carry over into release, when we can actually play them as well. There's no reason for absolute trust, and the lack of that trust is welcome.

Overall, I'm enjoying the experience, and there are some nice surprises too. I don't want to get spoilery, but there are things that had me going "I didn't see that coming" in a good way. For all that, it is, at the end of the day, Early Access. If you're looking for a great, polished experience, it's not here, yet. I suspect, based on past experience with Larian, that it will be, but right now they're trying to get feedback on what needs to be adjusted/changed to achieve that, and other feedback. So if you're looking for a "buy/don't buy" review, I can't give you one.
Posted By: Abits Re: How does BG3 compare to BG2? - 18/10/20 12:56 PM
About the comparison to Dao - bg3 would be lucky to be like Dao.

Personally I feel much more bg1 vibes than bg2 so far. which makes sense. Bg2 at least for the first few hours (I would say that much more) is set in a big civilised city. So far bg3 is set up like the first game, lots of wilderness, which is not necessarily a bad thing. It also much more similar to bg1 in its quest structure. A lot of strange encounters on the road.

Now I'm not worried at all about the gameplay. The combat is already tons of fun, and based of what I know about Larian, I assume they will put most of their efforts into refining and improving it. The biggest potential issue is the story and characters, and more specifically, Larian design philosophy which tends to prefer cool gameplay mechanics over cohesive narrative.

Already the game suffers a lot from the insistence of Larian to implement their origin characters here, and at times it seems like the game is struggling itself to deliver an interesting and suspenseful story. Aside from that, Larian's obsession with exploration and experimentation in their games already makes some parts of the story disjointed and unclear, and some of the story bits we do have are quite weak. All of these problems might not be such a huge issue for people who likes to play games this way, people who want to push the game's boundaries as much as they can, but I prefer a more restrictive experience with a more flashed out story.
Posted By: VincentNZ Re: How does BG3 compare to BG2? - 18/10/20 01:01 PM
As of now, the only resemblance between the two is the world it plays in. There are no remarks, notes or anything really related to any of the predecessors. So at this point in time the title Baldur's Gate 3 is misleading. It should instead be called: "A Forgotten Realms Role-playing Game", because this is the only connection, the setting.
Now this is likely subject to change, as we are in the first act with little interaction with the outside world or lore. There might have been a nod towards previous games, that I might have missed, but nothing that would bring back memories of olde.

As for the other things you mentioned: Depending on your knowledge on DoS games, 5e edition, D&D in general, as well as your own level of inquisitive mind, the game is either ridiculously challenging or extremely easy. It is not very accessible or transparent. Now BG 2 was worse, as it did not tell you a lot either, but I played it on Normal and Hard multiple times without ever using one skill other than spells (offensive spells mostly). I still have no idea what I did 20 years ago and every couple of years when I replayed it. I only learned in 2016 what 1d6 actually refers to and only in 2018 what Thac0 means.
This means I finished the games for the story, the gameplay was just icing on the cake and would have offered me a great experiences over and over, had I ever wanted that. BG 3's story, when compared to the first act of BG 2 is...unremarkable. Irenicus alone, makes for a great villain and entry to the story. The child of a god thing of BG1 was nothing new, but was decently presented. BG3 brings no villain and no new storyline, a parasite in the head is a common trope of stories. It is also decently presented, though, with a lot of cutscenes and a general tendency to visual storytelling over textual. However BG2 made me feel invested right from the start, although one could argue that at the age of 15, it was easier to impress me, although many other games still manage that. BG3 has not, so far.
The companions are, very special in BG3. So special that they overshadow the PC in how remarkable they are. They are also pretty edgy, so much that it makes me roll my eyes and I am remarkably uninvested and indifferent to any of them. This is not much different with the BG1 companions who often were just supposed to fill a role, but they had stories of their own that were rather relatable. In BG2 I had much more investment right from the start. Minsc and Jaheira I think never left my party at all. I always admired her and I thought Minsc was hilarious. I always romanced Aerie, but I hear the other romances were also satisfying. I loved all the banter and the amount of meaningful banter they had in between giving them more depth. Korgan and Aerie come to mind, two polar opposites, yet when Aerie breaks Korgan concedes that all he tried to do was make her fend for herself. Or Edwin in both parts. PoE characters also come to mind, they fit in the same role. Each had depth and character, yet many did not have an iconic background. They just were mercenaries, students, artists regular dudes with regular lives and relatable problems and also dire consequences.
BG 3 has interactions, and yeah some do not like each other, and maybe one of them leaves or dies or disapproves your action. I just do not care, though. It feels like a Telltale Game. If Minsc would advise me not to pick up the Sword of Superpower +6, I would have listened to him. I could not care less what Shadowheart thinks. Now this might also be, because of the first act and apparently you might not keep all origin characters, so they might be a bit like additional PCs more than actual companions, and the real guys are added in later acts. So that would explain the shallow, yet super special companions.

Gear-wise and possibility wise, the game seems great. I have seen players run with gear I have no idea where they got it from and there seems an awful lot of min-maxing to do, even within the first act. There also seems to be a lot of replayability since you seem to constantly lock yourself out of content, if you take certain routes and decisions.
From a gameplay mechanic point of view it seems alright with sheer endless potential. The UI and the general comfort is cumbersome to awful (e.g. party movement), but these things are also likely to be fine-tuned. There is a reason why the DoS games were so remarkably well-received. The full game will likely be a very good RPG.

If you are looking for a true successor to BG2 to bring back that feeling, because you like the story and the characters and the world, I would advise to not purchase or play yet. It will likely be disappointing if this is the main reason, like it was for me. If you are a DoS lover, that wants a fresh world go for it. If you are a D&D lover that is not bothered with some freedom taken from the ruleset, you will feel right at home.
Posted By: IrenicusBG3 Re: How does BG3 compare to BG2? - 18/10/20 01:04 PM
I can clearly say it is the closest game to BG2 that I ever played and my favorite RPG of the last 10 years.
Posted By: xMardeRx Re: How does BG3 compare to BG2? - 18/10/20 01:41 PM
worse then BG2 by far. Not coming even close.
Simply you ask to early as we have only a first act and this not a game but a tech demo.

So far this tech demo only shows a linear approach to quests.
The characters are all eggy and every one and everything is "special".
The maps are small and super crampd. Every two steps something explodes. Its like made for ADS children that cant sit still for two seconds.
No day night progression no sense of urgency no sense of time progression.
Loot out of your ass of super special stuff.
Barrels every where that explode even more.

There is a promise of a rpg but the execution so far is terrible.
Its a tech demo after all but if this si showing off where we are heading it wont be great.
It get even worse with what kind of people it attracts, bloated HP enemys(a gobbling has more HP then a GOD or grand demon/devil should have in DnD) are less of concern then petting the dog or what they can have virtual sex with.
Retarded fanboism about VR characters and non sens stuff is pushed before things that have a by far more grander impact on the game at all.

I give the tech demo a meh out of mhhh.
Posted By: Ixal Re: How does BG3 compare to BG2? - 18/10/20 01:46 PM
Originally Posted by IrenicusBG3
I can clearly say it is the closest game to BG2 that I ever played and my favorite RPG of the last 10 years.

You should really try out Pathfinder.
Posted By: SorcererVictor Re: How does BG3 compare to BG2? - 18/10/20 01:49 PM
Story > The story is very different. Time of troubles, Bhaalsapawn, mindflayers are a central part of BG1, but are optional enemies on most of the BG2 part.

Items > BG2 has more depth on items. Clay golems require blunt magical weapons, plate armor have higher AC vs slashes thank blunt and makes sense that maces > swords vs armor

Magic > There are over 300 spells on BG2 and each one is unique. The magic system is far more old school. Spells are far more deadlier, but remember. Every spell which an PC can cast, an NPC can cast.
Posted By: Ixal Re: How does BG3 compare to BG2? - 18/10/20 01:54 PM
Also, because of WotC panic retcons when they botched 4E everything you did in the previous 2 BG games is for naught as all Bhaalspawn eventually died and Bhaal returned.
Posted By: svig Re: How does BG3 compare to BG2? - 18/10/20 03:00 PM
In BG 2 I felt like my character was the main protagonist in an epic tale. In BG 3 that is not the case. Now the tale may be epic (to early to tell) but my character is no more the main protagonist than his companions. The story is not about him it is about us -as in him and his companions-.

Also, there is no day/night cycle. So, there is no waiting until nightfall to infiltrate a camp or creep through a city unnoticed. Or waiting for daytime to explore a graveyard with a low-level party. In BG 2 one place could be wildly different during the day and during the night.

Don’t get me wrong I am thoroughly enjoying BG 3 but so far, I am not getting any BG 2 or BG 1 vibes at all. The only similarities I see so far is that it takes place in the same world
Posted By: Abits Re: How does BG3 compare to BG2? - 18/10/20 03:21 PM
I have a lot of criticism about the game as it is right now. But some of you are not being fair. Day night circle is at best a nice feature, an annoyance at worst. Adding day night circle simply because it was in BG is kinda stupid (hey poe and pathfinder). Not that Larian doesn't add game mechanics for stupid reasons.
Both pathfinder and pillars of eternity are nice, but at least in my opinion they prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that you need more than to copy paste Baldur's Gate gameplay to create a successor.
Posted By: VincentNZ Re: How does BG3 compare to BG2? - 18/10/20 03:52 PM
Originally Posted by Abits
I have a lot of criticism about the game as it is right now. But some of you are not being fair. Day night circle is at best a nice feature, an annoyance at worst. Adding day night circle simply because it was in BG is kinda stupid (hey poe and pathfinder). Not that Larian doesn't add game mechanics for stupid reasons.
Both pathfinder and pillars of eternity are nice, but at least in my opinion they prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that you need more than to copy paste Baldur's Gate gameplay to create a successor.


Yeah, I would put BG 3 in the "nice" category as well. laugh I do think PoE is a very good and true successor of BG2, though. The story is good and sort of new, the atmosphere is fantastic, the gameplay is accessible and decent, it is nicely ported into the current time, while still making nods to the spiritual predecessor. I still think BG2 is the better game, but I attribute that mostly to my 15 year old self. I would also say that the companions of PoE are on average better than the ones of BG2.
What is interesting though, is that I replayed BG2 about ten times (although only finishing it twice), I never replayed PoE, as I feel fully satisfied with the experience it gave me. Anyhow, I do not know why I replied particularly to you, probably just wanted to defend PoE. laugh

If I would compare the first acts of PoE and BG 3 though directly I would always choose Pillars. The bleak atmosphere and immersion is so much more breathtaking to me, Aloth and Eder are awesome companions and the story grips me way harder than the tadpole. What BG3 has though, which sadly is only a tertiary reason to me, is the gameplay and possibilities aspect, which would be very intriguing, if Larian actually did explain and show stuff in depth. This is what I am most interested in this game right now. I suspect there will be a few nods to BG2 and maybe Minsc, but I doubt the story will present anything more than standard fantasy setting.
Posted By: DumbleDorf Re: How does BG3 compare to BG2? - 18/10/20 03:56 PM
I find that DAO was much closer to BG1/2 than this game is.

I never bought any of the other Dragons Age games since how disappointing the demo for the second one was, along with the unforgettable 'WHEN YOU PUSH A BUTTON SOMETHING AWESOME HASTA HAPPEN''.

It straight up felt like Bioware were 100% trolling from DA2 onwards.
Posted By: Abits Re: How does BG3 compare to BG2? - 18/10/20 04:25 PM
About DAO: this is a game that was designed as a spiritual successor for bg3. It's only conjecture, but I think there only two reason it wasn't bg3 - 1. licenceing issues - bioware didn't have the rights for BG at the time.
2. Bioware's desire for independence - at the time bioware created two settings, DAO's settings and Mass Effect's. They did it because they didn't want to be constrained by limitations they didn't create for themselves.

About POE - I honestly never finished the first game. It was just super boring. I did finish deadfire and enjoyed it very much. However, I really don't think the story is as unique and innovative as people say. The gods angle is something BG did, and did it much better.

About bg3 and whether it is a true successor - the gist of it is that it is too early to tell. And anyway, I'll say it again - the greatness of BG games doesn't stem from rtwp, day night cycle, or the number of optional races. These things are part of it, but alone they wouldn't have been the stuff of legend that is the BG saga. But that's just me and my priorities as a player.
Posted By: DumbleDorf Re: How does BG3 compare to BG2? - 18/10/20 04:33 PM
I managed to finish POE 1, but found the second to be too boring right from the start.

It seems like it tries too hard to just be a BG clone forgoing staying interesting rather than just feeling like a slog to play.

Larian had the right idea with super condensing everything on the map, so theres always something interesting right sbout to happen rather than having to keep on wandering through loads of wlderness and areas.

A mature indie game called Bastard Bonds handles having a BG1/2 like map while keeping it highly interesting and fun to play, but it is very simplified such as the magic attribute only giving a single ranged spell attack, and having the same singular attack and tanking mechanics, as well as the game straight up looking like gay porn. But the whole game stays fun and addictive to keep on exploring.

Posted By: Argonaut Re: How does BG3 compare to BG2? - 18/10/20 05:00 PM
All I can say is that if you go into this game as a fan of BG1&2 you will be sorely disappointed. The game has taken many steps in the wrong direction and it's for a reason I don't see discussed very often. D&D, at it's core, is attempting to create a simulation that is as close to reality as possible. In pen and paper we have no choice but to interact directly with the mechanics but video games offer so many alternatives and ways to avoid doing this in order to increase the efficacy of the simulation. BG3 makes no attempt at this in similar ways to DivOS. Mechanics are broadcast and shoved into your face constantly. The game breaks the 4th wall shamelessly. Older games did what they could to hide the artificial nature of the simulation but Larian doesn't seem to think this is worth doing despite how easy it is and how many people are already complaining about things such as dice rolls. I'm not sure if anyone would disagree with me when I say that immersion is king in RPGs and this game is constantly fighting to pull you out of immersion and remind you that it's just variables, logic gates and thresholds and that has made it a very poor experience for me overall.
Posted By: Argyle Re: How does BG3 compare to BG2? - 18/10/20 05:08 PM
I'll admit I am kind of disappointed to hear there is no day/night cycle. Maybe this is something Larian will add later? That was definitely a cool story aspect of BG ... Narlen Darkwalk and Mook would meet you only at night!

And the background music changed accordingly, which I thought was very cool. How is the music in BG III so far?
Posted By: sunset261 Re: How does BG3 compare to BG2? - 18/10/20 05:22 PM
The worse:
Story hook isn't as strong
Larian's changes to the rules mess with combat balance
Many of the sidequests here seem pointless. You try to find a way to get the tadpole out only to figure out that nobody can actually do it.
as many people here said, BG3 having a day/night cycle could be awesome, especially since light conditions actually affect hit chance in this game.
controlling the party isn't as intuitive. Clicking on a party member speaks to them instead of selecting them. You also can't drag select, instead you have to use the chain party system for grouping.

The better:
you can actually side with the bad guys.
Combat arenas are more interesting than just a flat plane
lots of hidden nooks and crannies and secret passages.
better verticality
better stealth
5E rules allow for more interesting use of positioning.
5E rules prevent buff stacking before every hard fight.
Posted By: sunset261 Re: How does BG3 compare to BG2? - 18/10/20 05:34 PM
Originally Posted by Argyle
How is the music in BG III so far?


It's a mixed bag
some of it sounds like pure BG goodness
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l6pwrEnOUSA

but other stuff just sounds like DOS2 stuff. Complete with the same exact "ethnic" instruments.
Posted By: Argonaut Re: How does BG3 compare to BG2? - 18/10/20 05:40 PM
Originally Posted by sunset261

you can actually side with the bad guys.
Combat arenas are more interesting than just a flat plane
lots of hidden nooks and crannies and secret passages.
better verticality
better stealth
5E rules allow for more interesting use of positioning.
5E rules prevent buff stacking before every hard fight.

I don't mean to be contrarian but you could side with the bad guys(and be the antagonist) in older BG games. They where also filled with secrets that lead to much bigger payoffs than what is currently in the game even in the starting areas. While flanking and position is highlighted and played up a lot this has nothing to do with the editions and positioning mechanics where, as a matter of fact, nerfed in 5e and weaker comparatively to some of the older editions. 5e rules do not prevent prebuffing either(mage armor lasts for 8 hours for example) and this is again something that the game is actively working against rather than the ruleset.

As far as verticality and combat arena's I agree with you completely but I am still waiting for the full release before I pass judgement on stealth mechanics as too much is missing and with how the action economy has already been altered I'm curious to see what else will be changed prior to a 1.0 release.
Posted By: Sozz Re: How does BG3 compare to BG2? - 18/10/20 06:14 PM
Shadows of Amn is my favorite game of all time, I still feel the urge to replay it every so often, so I don't hold it against other games if they don't compare to it. I'll reserve my judgement of the story in BG:3 because of how little there is of it, but I'm a big fan of the direction companion characterization is going. For me a large part of why BG:2 is evergreen is because of the writing, banter and character quests that occur with your party, that said, NPC agency is something I'd really like to see developed more in games like this and I like what I've seen so far from BG:3.

That said there are two things I don't think BG:2 did well:

1. The characters could be great or not, depending on the writer. The level of writing in BG:2 could be very uneven sometimes.

2. There were no mid-tier battles. Combat in Baldur's Gate 2 was either all or nothing. Encounters broke down into two types; either your enemies have one gimmick, if you could counter it the fight becomes trivial, if you couldn't you'd fail;
then things go from 3 to 11, with wizard fights, the first round of combat is just a chorus of sequencers putting up protection magic, and the battle devolves into a war of attrition as the mages sling debuffs at each other, and the grunts just mill about. "my weapon does nothing" "heresy!"

to the first point, like I've said, I'm seeing good things. I also think 3 has so far had a nice range of encounter types, so all in all I'm happy with it.
Posted By: KillerRabbit Re: How does BG3 compare to BG2? - 18/10/20 07:29 PM
Time will tell but so my vote is: tremendously entertaining game that doesn't feel like BG yet. Not yet sure if I'm in the "not BG3 but I'm okay with it" or "this is proof that it should have been called "Baldur's Gate: Rise of the Absolute" camp. I largely agree with what @nicotta @robertthebard @svig and @ambits have said.

The good:

Writing: So far the stories of Wyll and Shadowheart are grabbing me. Gale is annoying as crap but he's also well written -- every BG game needs an Anomen it seems.

The tadpole is good substitute for the Bhaal powers and in some way better done that the Bhaal powers. The cambion is a good substitute for the deal with the shadow thieves.

Mechanics: put me as a big fan of the dice roll. Fond memories of hoping that I would actually make that savings throw, nice to see my proficiencies count! Some core rules -- like the ability to see in dark are better implemented in BG3 than they were in the other games. In BG, infravision was a wasted spell. Now I have a use for low light vision and my human is paying the price for those stat buffs.

The bad:

The origin characters overshadow me. The "ahh I'm back in the underdark" for my drow character isn't enough. Like PoE1 my background should count. The character creator also needs an expanded background creator. Why is a former chosen of god, a priest on a holy mission and a hero of the sword coast following my lead? In BG, the older, more experienced Jaheria deferred to me because I had a divine destiny. The former chosen defers to me -- why, exactly?

The game, so far, is Larian linear. Just like there were multiple ways to get into the dungeons and out of Fort Joy, so there are multiple ways to get to moonrise towers. Branching paths but all roads lead to Rome. What's missing is the BG1 / BG2 - chapter 2 / PoE2 open world experience. Let's hope that changes when we get to Baldur's Gate. I want that BG1 experience of walking into a random home and getting a quest. Lots and lots of quests.

The BG series had a higher replay value than any other game to date and

(this was also a failure of PoE1 -- the quests didn't open up until you took the keep, until then it Obsidian linear. Again, multiple paths all leading to Rome)

4 party members. Bad decision. Needs to be 6.

Undecided

Waiting to see if you can put together a heroic party. I want to save the save the sword coast from a costly war with Amn. I want to put an end to destructive beholder cult. I want to kick butt for goodness. I liked saving the lives of the kids in the grove but I also saved the lives of murderous asshats who wanted to build that wall (of thorns) and so the victory feels a bit mixed. I get my realpolitik fix from the news, in fantasy I want to play the hero's quest. Preferably heroism mixed with a dash of ironic humor -- "Fear not! I will inspire you all by charging blindly on!"


Posted By: sunset261 Re: How does BG3 compare to BG2? - 18/10/20 08:17 PM
Originally Posted by Argonaut

I don't mean to be contrarian but you could side with the bad guys(and be the antagonist) in older BG games.


Kind of. You couldn't side with Sarevok in BG1 and you could temporarily side with Bodhi over the shadow thieves in BG2 but this game seems like it's going to give the option to fully side with the villains.

Originally Posted by Argonaut

5e rules do not prevent prebuffing either


I didn't say it did but concentration prevents just stacking a ton of them before every hard encounter. You can prebuff but each caster can only have 1 buff active at a time.
Posted By: Alodar Re: How does BG3 compare to BG2? - 18/10/20 08:45 PM
No-one has played BG3 , we've only played Early Access of the first chapter., so it would be impossible to have an informed opinion.

Ask again in a year once BG3 comes out and then people can compare.

Posted By: DumbleDorf Re: How does BG3 compare to BG2? - 18/10/20 08:46 PM
On the topic of the music in this game, it is completely substandard and below average.

The menu / loading screen grunting male choir for example isnt even 2% near to Skyrims Dovakhin track.

It sounds like they have simply used a midi choir rather than real vocalists or some such, and on top of that none of the music from the game in the 50+ hours I have played is memorable and I haven't heard anything that I thought 'wow I really like that'.

The only reaction I have felt is cringing over the menu / loading grunting noises.
Posted By: Argonaut Re: How does BG3 compare to BG2? - 18/10/20 08:55 PM
Originally Posted by sunset261
Originally Posted by Argonaut

I don't mean to be contrarian but you could side with the bad guys(and be the antagonist) in older BG games.


Kind of. You couldn't side with Sarevok in BG1 and you could temporarily side with Bodhi over the shadow thieves in BG2 but this game seems like it's going to give the option to fully side with the villains.

You could also side with the shadow thieves. You could also side with the corrupt figureheads of water deep or the malignant genies. You could let the Raksasha go etc. You could actively choose to be the bad guy and you could actively choose to ignore the plight of common people. You can let Irenicus win. Obviously there are cases where you couldn't join the minor villains because of extraneous factors(such as being a flesh puppet to a skinwalker) but you could choose to be the main villain and antagonist as well. You can choose to become the God of Murder. The games mechanics even reflect this because if you do choose to be evil people will find out, your infamy will spread, and righteous people will hunt you down. I understand that the older games where not perfect in this regard but they where created during the dawn of the genre. We are currently in it's renaissance so there is no reason for there to be less choice.

Originally Posted by sunset261
Originally Posted by Argonaut

5e rules do not prevent prebuffing either


I didn't say it did but concentration prevents just stacking a ton of them before every hard encounter. You can pre buff but each caster can only have 1 buff active at a time.

I can have two mages in my party in 5e and one can cast fly and the other can cast invisibility. I have now stacked two very powerful buffs pre battle in 5e. I would agree if you had said that it is harder or more situational to stack buffs but not even all buff spells are concentration and you can stack potion buffs and buffs from other sources such as items or wands readily.
Posted By: Abits Re: How does BG3 compare to BG2? - 18/10/20 09:09 PM
Originally Posted by Alodar
No-one has played BG3 , we've only played Early Access of the first chapter., so it would be impossible to have an informed opinion.

Ask again in a year once BG3 comes out and then people can compare.


short but to the point
Posted By: DumbleDorf Re: How does BG3 compare to BG2? - 18/10/20 09:11 PM
Originally Posted by Argonaut
Originally Posted by sunset261
Originally Posted by Argonaut

I don't mean to be contrarian but you could side with the bad guys(and be the antagonist) in older BG games.


Kind of. You couldn't side with Sarevok in BG1 and you could temporarily side with Bodhi over the shadow thieves in BG2 but this game seems like it's going to give the option to fully side with the villains.

You could also side with the shadow thieves. You could also side with the corrupt figureheads of water deep or the malignant genies. You could let the Raksasha go etc. You could actively choose to be the bad guy and you could actively choose to ignore the plight of common people. You can let Irenicus win. Obviously there are cases where you couldn't join the minor villains because of extraneous factors(such as being a flesh puppet to a skinwalker) but you could choose to be the main villain and antagonist as well. You can choose to become the God of Murder. The games mechanics even reflect this because if you do choose to be evil people will find out, your infamy will spread, and righteous people will hunt you down. I understand that the older games where not perfect in this regard but they where created during the dawn of the genre. We are currently in it's renaissance so there is no reason for there to be less choice.

Originally Posted by sunset261
Originally Posted by Argonaut

5e rules do not prevent prebuffing either


I didn't say it did but concentration prevents just stacking a ton of them before every hard encounter. You can pre buff but each caster can only have 1 buff active at a time.

I can have two mages in my party in 5e and one can cast fly and the other can cast invisibility. I have now stacked two very powerful buffs pre battle in 5e. I would agree if you had said that it is harder or more situational to stack buffs but not even all buff spells are concentration and you can stack potion buffs and buffs from other sources such as items or wands readily.


Siding with the shadow thieves was the default 'good' option.
Posted By: Hawke Re: How does BG3 compare to BG2? - 18/10/20 09:19 PM
BG2 was one of the most boring RPGs I have ever played so I have never finished it, Bg1 was the only good game in that series until BG3. BG2 was filled with boring quests/characters/places while Bg1 made you feel like you are on a grand adventure with friends.
Posted By: KillerRabbit Re: How does BG3 compare to BG2? - 18/10/20 09:19 PM
Quote

I don't mean to be contrarian but you could side with the bad guys(and be the antagonist) in older BG games.


This. You could kill the leader of a slave revolt and ensure that children are sold into slavery. You could poison the druid grove for a few extra coin. You could free an immortal lich to access a powerful ring. You could perform a live sacrifice a to Demon Lord to get the most powerful hammer in the game. You could make slaves explode just to see them explode, you could feed them to spiders. You could sell silver dragon eggs to yet another demon to get a powerful axe. And the options to create zombies and to summon a demon to kill everyone are right there in your spellbook. You could allow innocent civilians get fireballed just so you could keep a silver sword. You could either help an evil race of shark men thrive or let them die in agony (no good option on that quest). You could kill random gnomes all for the glory of Lloth. You could keep a child's soul entrapped in a gem for more power. You can walk around in armor made of human flesh and wear a helmet made from the skulls of the mage's parents. You could give into your urges and become a lamprey faced monster. You could betray your allies and become the new lord of murder. And this is in core game, not the EEs which gave even more evil options.

Hell, good parties side with an evil thieves guild and betray their drow patron.

I'm glad those options are in the game because they make the good actions meaningful. BG2 got it right -- have evil options but don't make it the point of the game, leave that for niche titles like tyranny. (and Larian's data and the sales numbers of Tyranny makes it clear that evil options are a niche)
Posted By: Argonaut Re: How does BG3 compare to BG2? - 18/10/20 09:59 PM
Originally Posted by DumbleDorf
Originally Posted by Argonaut
Originally Posted by sunset261
Originally Posted by Argonaut

I don't mean to be contrarian but you could side with the bad guys(and be the antagonist) in older BG games.


Kind of. You couldn't side with Sarevok in BG1 and you could temporarily side with Bodhi over the shadow thieves in BG2 but this game seems like it's going to give the option to fully side with the villains.

You could also side with the shadow thieves. You could also side with the corrupt figureheads of water deep or the malignant genies. You could let the Raksasha go etc. You could actively choose to be the bad guy and you could actively choose to ignore the plight of common people. You can let Irenicus win. Obviously there are cases where you couldn't join the minor villains because of extraneous factors(such as being a flesh puppet to a skinwalker) but you could choose to be the main villain and antagonist as well. You can choose to become the God of Murder. The games mechanics even reflect this because if you do choose to be evil people will find out, your infamy will spread, and righteous people will hunt you down. I understand that the older games where not perfect in this regard but they where created during the dawn of the genre. We are currently in it's renaissance so there is no reason for there to be less choice.

Originally Posted by sunset261
Originally Posted by Argonaut

5e rules do not prevent prebuffing either


I didn't say it did but concentration prevents just stacking a ton of them before every hard encounter. You can pre buff but each caster can only have 1 buff active at a time.

I can have two mages in my party in 5e and one can cast fly and the other can cast invisibility. I have now stacked two very powerful buffs pre battle in 5e. I would agree if you had said that it is harder or more situational to stack buffs but not even all buff spells are concentration and you can stack potion buffs and buffs from other sources such as items or wands readily.


Siding with the shadow thieves was the default 'good' option.

Could you please explain to me how you came to that conclusion because I would consider it to be the lesser of two evils. The shadow thieves are not good people and many people are discontent with their existence. They are open with the laws they break and have done equally questionable things as the vampires. The vampires are only worse because they are unholy undead abominations but murder is murder. Theft is theft. And being slightly less worse than an unholy undead abomination is not good in the most forgiving of conditions.

Originally Posted by Alodar
No-one has played BG3 , we've only played Early Access of the first chapter., so it would be impossible to have an informed opinion.

Ask again in a year once BG3 comes out and then people can compare.


This is an extremely poor take and very condescending. Do you think we lack the reasoning to make estimations in lieu of that knowledge? Did you think the points we are making are not in consideration of that? In a year the game may not be early access and it would be much more difficult, costly and time consuming for changes to be made or things to be adjusted making this not only the best time for Larian to receive feedback but it is also the purpose of early access. If you disagree with the points being made you are more than welcome to dispute them with your reasoning and supportive evidence. If that was not the intention then I would like them to please explain to me what I paid full price for?
Posted By: Anfindel Re: How does BG3 compare to BG2? - 18/10/20 10:49 PM
Actually Argonaut, Alodar's response is quite accurate, and your comment is rather obnoxious and arrogant. You asked how does BG3 compare to BG2 and he noted, quite correctly, that nobody has played BG3. Had you asked how does the current early access version of BG3 similar to, and different from BG2, you would perhaps be posing a viable question. You cannot compare an unfinished, essentially beta test version of a product to a product that was not only finished and polished, but modified out the wazoo for years with enough options to satisfy any palate.

There is a difference between seeking comparative data, and opinion. Data is System A operated in this fashion, system B operated in that fashion. Opinion is which someone preferred. Critique is a combination of both of those, plus an offering of alternatives that might resolve any disparity or disjunction between Data and Preferences.

It also appears that whenever someone offers an opinion that differs from yours, you want them to justify their opinion. That suggests you merely seek affirmation of your position, rather than someone's personal critique.
Posted By: DumbleDorf Re: How does BG3 compare to BG2? - 18/10/20 10:56 PM
You have two choices in BG2, side with the Shadow Thieves or side with the Vampires.

The fact that if you side with the vampires, you still get betrayed by Bodhi proves that it is the 'evil' choice out of the two.

Shadow Thieves are not an evil organisation. In Fact Imoen is a thief and Neutral Good. Robin Hood would 'steal from the rich to give to the poor' as an example of a Chaotic Good act of thievery.

That is not to say that the Shadow Thieves are a 'good' organization either, however all that they are is that they are not a 'Lawful' organization, and would likely attract interest from non lawful good, neutral and evil aligned characters.

Posted By: Argonaut Re: How does BG3 compare to BG2? - 18/10/20 11:32 PM
Originally Posted by Anfindel
Actually Argonaut, Alodar's response is quite accurate, and your comment is rather obnoxious and arrogant. You asked how does BG3 compare to BG2 and he noted, quite correctly, that nobody has played BG3. Had you asked how does the current early access version of BG3 similar to, and different from BG2, you would perhaps be posing a viable question. You cannot compare an unfinished, essentially beta test version of a product to a product that was not only finished and polished, but modified out the wazoo for years with enough options to satisfy any palate.

I didn't ask anything. I gave feedback. You are welcome to go back to my feedback and explain to me how full release will change the problems I raised. You are welcome to do so to any of the criticism levied against it and thereby prove your point. What is unwelcome is proclaiming your viewpoint from a high standing and expecting us to all solemnly nod while you tell how we think and how wrong we are. We can think for ourselves thanks.

Originally Posted by Anfindel
There is a difference between seeking comparative data, and opinion. Data is System A operated in this fashion, system B operated in that fashion. Opinion is which someone preferred. Critique is a combination of both of those, plus an offering of alternatives that might resolve any disparity or disjunction between Data and Preferences.

This is very nice word salad. You are welcome to challenge my, or anyone elses, criticism and prove it. Have you not read peoples posts and see caveats such as "so far" or "currently" or "maybe it will be improved in the future"?

Quote
It also appears that whenever someone offers an opinion that differs from yours, you want them to justify their opinion. That suggests you merely seek affirmation of your position, rather than someone's personal critique.

Or, and this is just a crazy idea, I want to hear what they have to say. Of course I will challenge an opinion that I do not agree with and I have gone out of my way to be as cordial and inviting as possible while explaining my thoughts and reasoning as clearly as possible as well as explaining why I am asking for the reasoning behind certain opinions. This is the nature of a discussion. I can't stop you from making accusations and flinging insults but I hope you'll be understanding when I say I'm not going to enable or participate.

Originally Posted by DumbleDorf
You have two choices in BG2, side with the Shadow Thieves or side with the Vampires.

The fact that if you side with the vampires, you still get betrayed by Bodhi proves that it is the 'evil' choice out of the two.

Shadow Thieves are not an evil organisation. In Fact Imoen is a thief and Neutral Good. Robin Hood would 'steal from the rich to give to the poor' as an example of a Chaotic Good act of thievery.

That is not to say that the Shadow Thieves are a 'good' organization either, however all that they are is that they are not a 'Lawful' organization, and would likely attract interest from non lawful good, neutral and evil aligned characters.


You have more choice than that, and this has already been brought up with evidence. I can choose to side with the genies. I can choose to let the Raksasha go and tell them that I let her go. I can choose to leave the power hungry druid leader of the cove. I can choose to let her defeat Cernd. I can choose to let Irenicus win. In instances where choices are not provided to me there is concrete reasoning for it offered forthwith both internally and externally. I cannot join the murderer from the bridge district because he is a skinwalker and sees me as a flesh puppet. I cannot join Irenicus because he has to kill me to obtain his goal which will also end with my death. People have also admitted that BG2 is not perfect in this regard but offers a greater degree of choice and agency than anyone is giving it credit to and argues greater choice overall since you can choose to be the main antagonist of the game. All of these comments where made in respect to people proposing that BG2 does not offer you freedom, not that DivOS2 offers less or more. Even in the example you are given Bodhi has a very concrete reason for betraying you and I'm not sure why you see this as a negative as you where given the choice but the characters involve react realistically by their own motivations rather than by what your character wants.

The shadow thieves are not robin hoods either and practise theft, extortion, murder and political espionage for their own benefit and well being. When you walk into Linvails office, or even your initial liason, it is furnished luxuriously and Aran Linvail is shown to be double crossing and self serving repeatedly. They are even classified as TN/LE in the game files.
Posted By: IdPreferNotTo Re: How does BG3 compare to BG2? - 19/10/20 12:56 AM
Comparing the two games at the level of narrative makes me wonder, if Larian is too dead set on making players feel nostalgia, that they'll end up recycling way too many pieces of the plotlines found in the earlier installments. My biggest disappointment was the pivotal moral choice of chapter 1 in BG3(evil being just plain stupid/suicidal). And now that I think of it, its basically a repetition of the first pivotal moral choice you're given in BG2. I mean, in BG2 you're also given a choice between siding with a faction at war with your captors and foolishly siding with your captors parasitic minions.
Posted By: Olindo Re: How does BG3 compare to BG2? - 28/03/21 08:41 AM
I know that BG3 it's an early access game but, that said, at the moment I prefer the previous BG 1 and 2 .
In this ealry access, I notice the beauty of the artwork but I don't fill the same vibes of the previous BG1-2 , I don't fill the depth of the characters, I don't fill the complexity and the thin shade of the abilities and the spells, I don't fill the need to study in depth every single little move during the combat, I don't feel the need of studyng every spell, ability and resistance of the enemies... in other words BG3 is at the moment a DOS2 drone, and the game is not able to transfer the beauty and emotions of the classic D&D RPG as BG1 and 2.
That's my debatable and modest opinion.
Posted By: CJMPinger Re: How does BG3 compare to BG2? - 28/03/21 08:50 AM
It's not as good.
I don't say that as a mean thing but as a criticism. And this is mainly cause of the EA status of the game making it incomplete.
That said, it has a great amount of potential. And with a lot of work it could genuinely become the best videogame dnd adaptation. But we are a long way from there, and we are a long way from being par with the enjoyment of BG1/2.
Posted By: Aestus_RPG Re: How does BG3 compare to BG2? - 28/03/21 06:17 PM
Originally Posted by Hawke
BG2 was one of the most boring RPGs I have ever played so I have never finished it, Bg1 was the only good game in that series until BG3. BG2 was filled with boring quests/characters/places while Bg1 made you feel like you are on a grand adventure with friends.

BG1 is super underrated compared to BG2. I think it is hard to argue that BG2 is a better game. However, "x game is just boring" is aweful game critique, as a community we should be above it. What makes something "boring" often has more to do with our particular state of mind when we engage in it then the merits of the thing itself. Sometimes I find Shakespeare boring, it doesn't mean he wasn't the greatest English writer of all time. I know that because others times, when I am in the right state of mind, Shakespeare is a blast to read. People who only try once to play a game but weren't engaged by it forfeit their ability to judge the game. I mean, they can judge it, but none of the rest of us will take it seriously.
Posted By: grysqrl Re: How does BG3 compare to BG2? - 28/03/21 06:43 PM
A little algebra can help us to find the difference (X) between BG3 and BG2. First, let's switch to a more common notation:

X = BG3 - BG2 --> X = (3 * BG) - (2 * BG)

Then some simple factoring will give us our answer:

X = (3-2) * BG
X = (1) * BG
X = BG

So, the difference between Baldur's Gate 3 and Baldur's Gate 2 is Baldur's Gate.
Posted By: Drath Malorn Re: How does BG3 compare to BG2? - 28/03/21 07:03 PM
I feel compelled to voice (albeit by writing) my utmost approval for this post, grysqrl.
Posted By: Black_Elk Re: How does BG3 compare to BG2? - 28/03/21 10:27 PM
Just since someone brought up the music

BG1s musical sweep reminded me of this:


Note also the use of Nietzsche quote lol


BG2's theme was more like the battle of the mounds:



BG3's most memorable theme, which I only hear in the opening cinematic in Avernus, recalls this:


The intro music at launch/char creation feels like a Skyrim rip off of grunts right now, when it really should be more Wardruna level if they're going to go that way for the franchise.
Posted By: robertthebard Re: How does BG3 compare to BG2? - 29/03/21 03:32 AM
Originally Posted by grysqrl
A little algebra can help us to find the difference (X) between BG3 and BG2. First, let's switch to a more common notation:

X = BG3 - BG2 --> X = (3 * BG) - (2 * BG)

Then some simple factoring will give us our answer:

X = (3-2) * BG
X = (1) * BG
X = BG

So, the difference between Baldur's Gate 3 and Baldur's Gate 2 is Baldur's Gate.

Except that, in BG 2, there was no Baldur's Gate?
Posted By: ash elemental Re: How does BG3 compare to BG2? - 29/03/21 05:53 AM
Originally Posted by robertthebard
Originally Posted by grysqrl
A little algebra can help us to find the difference (X) between BG3 and BG2. First, let's switch to a more common notation:

X = BG3 - BG2 --> X = (3 * BG) - (2 * BG)

Then some simple factoring will give us our answer:

X = (3-2) * BG
X = (1) * BG
X = BG

So, the difference between Baldur's Gate 3 and Baldur's Gate 2 is Baldur's Gate.

Except that, in BG 2, there was no Baldur's Gate?
Isn't that the point (my math is rusty)? If you subtract a game which doesn't have BG city from a game that does have BG city, BG city is the difference.
Posted By: Seraphael Re: How does BG3 compare to BG2? - 29/03/21 09:40 AM
Originally Posted by Aestus_RPG
Originally Posted by Hawke
BG2 was one of the most boring RPGs I have ever played so I have never finished it, Bg1 was the only good game in that series until BG3. BG2 was filled with boring quests/characters/places while Bg1 made you feel like you are on a grand adventure with friends.

People who only try once to play a game but weren't engaged by it forfeit their ability to judge the game. I mean, they can judge it, but none of the rest of us will take it seriously.

That is just such a thinly veiled authoritarian "hardcore gamer elitist" notion. It means only the people who like any given game enough to complete it, is entitled to an opinion. No matter how well reasoned the criticisms are. This is akin to saying we are only allowed to learn from positive experiences, not negative ones unless you have no life like me and are prepared to waste countless hours doing something you dislike. Shuddup haterz, we don't take you seriously around these parts! If anything, these criticisms should be heeded just as much, if not more than your average fanboi's/hardcore gamer's. Especially in an industry where I believe an increasing majority doesn't complete games.
Posted By: Aestus_RPG Re: How does BG3 compare to BG2? - 29/03/21 03:17 PM
Originally Posted by Seraphael
Originally Posted by Aestus_RPG
Originally Posted by Hawke
BG2 was one of the most boring RPGs I have ever played so I have never finished it, Bg1 was the only good game in that series until BG3. BG2 was filled with boring quests/characters/places while Bg1 made you feel like you are on a grand adventure with friends.

People who only try once to play a game but weren't engaged by it forfeit their ability to judge the game. I mean, they can judge it, but none of the rest of us will take it seriously.

That is just such a thinly veiled authoritarian "hardcore gamer elitist" notion. It means only the people who like any given game enough to complete it, is entitled to an opinion. No matter how well reasoned the criticisms are. This is akin to saying we are only allowed to learn from positive experiences, not negative ones unless you have no life like me and are prepared to waste countless hours doing something you dislike. Shuddup haterz, we don't take you seriously around these parts! If anything, these criticisms should be heeded just as much, if not more than your average fanboi's/hardcore gamer's. Especially in an industry where I believe an increasing majority doesn't complete games.

I'm not sure who you are arguing against, but it isn't me. I was arguing against "x game is just boring" critique. Criticisms like this are not well reasoned. I am happy to accept well reasoned criticism from someone who didn't finish the game, but "its just boring" is not well reasoned criticism.
Posted By: Wormerine Re: How does BG3 compare to BG2? - 30/03/21 02:15 PM
Originally Posted by mr_planescapist
What are your impressions of the current state of BG3 compared to BG2 (NOT DOS2, NOT D&D 5e...)
BG2 and BG3 are different games and different genres of RPG. Apples and oranges. Being a top down RPG doesn't make it the same game, just as FPSes come in various flavours. As such, I can't help with being negatively disposed toward BG3, with BG2 being one of my all time favourites.

On top of that BG3 is not finished, so it is possible (though unlikely) that at least some of my major petpeeves will be addressed. From a big picture side of things - Bioware knew precisely what kind of game they were making and what it's appeal was, I am not sure if Larian knows it. A lot of ideas and conflicting designs being thrown around. That said, it is possible it will all come together closer to the release as individual mechanics get polished.
Posted By: robertthebard Re: How does BG3 compare to BG2? - 03/04/21 10:19 PM
Originally Posted by ash elemental
Originally Posted by robertthebard
Originally Posted by grysqrl
A little algebra can help us to find the difference (X) between BG3 and BG2. First, let's switch to a more common notation:

X = BG3 - BG2 --> X = (3 * BG) - (2 * BG)

Then some simple factoring will give us our answer:

X = (3-2) * BG
X = (1) * BG
X = BG

So, the difference between Baldur's Gate 3 and Baldur's Gate 2 is Baldur's Gate.

Except that, in BG 2, there was no Baldur's Gate?
Isn't that the point (my math is rusty)? If you subtract a game which doesn't have BG city from a game that does have BG city, BG city is the difference.
When one says the difference is the lack of something, that implies that one has it, while the other doesn't. At this point, neither has Baldur's Gate.
Posted By: robertthebard Re: How does BG3 compare to BG2? - 03/04/21 10:24 PM
Originally Posted by Aestus_RPG
Originally Posted by Seraphael
Originally Posted by Aestus_RPG
Originally Posted by Hawke
BG2 was one of the most boring RPGs I have ever played so I have never finished it, Bg1 was the only good game in that series until BG3. BG2 was filled with boring quests/characters/places while Bg1 made you feel like you are on a grand adventure with friends.

People who only try once to play a game but weren't engaged by it forfeit their ability to judge the game. I mean, they can judge it, but none of the rest of us will take it seriously.

That is just such a thinly veiled authoritarian "hardcore gamer elitist" notion. It means only the people who like any given game enough to complete it, is entitled to an opinion. No matter how well reasoned the criticisms are. This is akin to saying we are only allowed to learn from positive experiences, not negative ones unless you have no life like me and are prepared to waste countless hours doing something you dislike. Shuddup haterz, we don't take you seriously around these parts! If anything, these criticisms should be heeded just as much, if not more than your average fanboi's/hardcore gamer's. Especially in an industry where I believe an increasing majority doesn't complete games.

I'm not sure who you are arguing against, but it isn't me. I was arguing against "x game is just boring" critique. Criticisms like this are not well reasoned. I am happy to accept well reasoned criticism from someone who didn't finish the game, but "its just boring" is not well reasoned criticism.
If I can't sit down and play a game because it's boring, that's a valid criticism. What does "it's not engaging" mean? Hint: It means it's boring. It means that it can't capture the writer's interest enough to want to finish it.

That can come down to personal taste, the story not being enough, the combat being too simplistic, amongst a myriad list of other possibilities. I'd probably want a bit more substance, what made it boring, to start with, but being boring, in and of itself is valid, if it's not helpful.
Posted By: Aestus_RPG Re: How does BG3 compare to BG2? - 03/04/21 10:33 PM
Originally Posted by robertthebard
I'd probably want a bit more substance, what made it boring, to start with, but being boring, in and of itself is valid, if it's not helpful.

My point exactly. Obviously being bored by a game is valid. We all play games to have fun, so if the game is boring, then its not working as a game. But what I said was that "x game is just boring" is bad critique. For it to be good critique we would need to hear an analysis of, say, what specifically made it boring, how they could fix it, etc. To do that though a critic would have to try more than once on the game, because very often human beings find something boring that is actually really interesting, they were just bored by it due to their particular state of mind when they tried. If they came back to it with a new state of mind, they might find the very same thing interesting.

For example, sometimes I get bored by difficult challenges, because they're difficult, and when I am lazy I am bored by difficult things. Would it be good criticism for me to say "x game was so difficult it ends up being boring?" Obviously not, since overcoming difficult challenges is a staple of interesting game play.
Posted By: mr_planescapist Re: How does BG3 compare to BG2? - 04/04/21 07:58 AM
Yea BG1 and BG2 was SOOO boring and dated and bad and old style and cheesy and UN-D&D and xxxxxx.... they decided to spend MILLIONS and a team of 300 plus developers all around the world to make a trilogy.
Alright then.
This all confirms to me that....They are only two kinds of people. Ones that played the original games in 1996~1999 and others who did not. Or just played the awful Enhanced Edition versions for an hour...or two.
Posted By: Wormerine Re: How does BG3 compare to BG2? - 04/04/21 09:48 AM
Originally Posted by mr_planescapist
Ones that played the original games in 1996~1999 and others who did not.
I don’t think many people played BG before it was released in 1998 ;-)
Posted By: Nyloth Re: How does BG3 compare to BG2? - 04/04/21 09:49 AM
Originally Posted by mr_planescapist
Yea BG1 and BG2 was SOOO boring and dated and bad and old style and cheesy and UN-D&D and xxxxxx.... they decided to spend MILLIONS and a team of 300 plus developers all around the world to make a trilogy.
Alright then.
This all confirms to me that....They are only two kinds of people. Ones that played the original games in 1996~1999 and others who did not. Or just played the awful Enhanced Edition versions for an hour...or two.

I believe that it is very important when you have played these games. If this was one of your first games, then, of course, your impressions of it should be amazing. But if you try to play it now and before you had no experience in such games like this, then everything will repel you. Starting with the interface and ending with the personalities of the characters. In fact, having experience in new games is very difficult to play the old ones.
Posted By: CJMPinger Re: How does BG3 compare to BG2? - 04/04/21 10:47 AM
I don't consider the Enhanced Editions terrible at all.
They show in their age, but that is part of the game and EE fixes many issues with the originals I think? Mainly some things blatantly being false or not working. The games themselves are very solid, the story is still good, and the party on an adventure is very fun, and with EE I actually like many of the newer NPCs added. Dorn is great in both games for example with a good amount of content added with him, and SoD is something I need to get eventually. On why people don't like the older games though is cause partly presentation cause BG1EE and 2EE still look old to people, partly cause convenience cause AD&D2 wasn't exactly the easiest system to grasp for some (especially if you are jumping in from an newer system like 3.5e, 4e, or 5e), and partly cause some people just wouldn't have liked em in '98 so they wouldn't really like them now. Some people never clicked with the story or found it to be a boring experience, but to much of us, newer and older players, the game struck a chord. Hence why this game, BG3, is even being made in the first place.
That said, you do need to consider Criticism from all sides to make this game, it'd be very easy to just dismiss one side outright with bias, like saying "Those newer players never played BG1 and 2 or didn't play them the right way or enough so their opinion on this new game doesn't matter cause they don't have the experience with the series!" or say "Those old players who played BG1 and 2 are stuck in the past and are in the minority so their opinion doesn't matter cause we should only look to the greater market!". Dismissing either will just make the game suck for a whole lot of people, sometimes they might have to make a decision between those two 'camps,' but for a big project with baggage like this one, both sides really do need consideration.
Posted By: Danielbda Re: How does BG3 compare to BG2? - 04/04/21 02:32 PM
Originally Posted by Nyloth
Originally Posted by mr_planescapist
Yea BG1 and BG2 was SOOO boring and dated and bad and old style and cheesy and UN-D&D and xxxxxx.... they decided to spend MILLIONS and a team of 300 plus developers all around the world to make a trilogy.
Alright then.
This all confirms to me that....They are only two kinds of people. Ones that played the original games in 1996~1999 and others who did not. Or just played the awful Enhanced Edition versions for an hour...or two.

I believe that it is very important when you have played these games. If this was one of your first games, then, of course, your impressions of it should be amazing. But if you try to play it now and before you had no experience in such games like this, then everything will repel you. Starting with the interface and ending with the personalities of the characters. In fact, having experience in new games is very difficult to play the old ones.
You should speak for yourself. I have no nostalgia for these games, as I was a small kid when they were released and only played the Enhanced Editions after playing Pillars of Eternity and I loved every second of it. From the character creation to the end slides in ToB.
Like any massive CRPG getting to know the system is fun and not repelling at all, the combat is tactical and you have so many options, the dialogue is fun, it is one of the very few games that made me laugh out loud playing.
Posted By: Nyloth Re: How does BG3 compare to BG2? - 04/04/21 03:00 PM
Originally Posted by Danielbda
Originally Posted by Nyloth
Originally Posted by mr_planescapist
Yea BG1 and BG2 was SOOO boring and dated and bad and old style and cheesy and UN-D&D and xxxxxx.... they decided to spend MILLIONS and a team of 300 plus developers all around the world to make a trilogy.
Alright then.
This all confirms to me that....They are only two kinds of people. Ones that played the original games in 1996~1999 and others who did not. Or just played the awful Enhanced Edition versions for an hour...or two.

I believe that it is very important when you have played these games. If this was one of your first games, then, of course, your impressions of it should be amazing. But if you try to play it now and before you had no experience in such games like this, then everything will repel you. Starting with the interface and ending with the personalities of the characters. In fact, having experience in new games is very difficult to play the old ones.
You should speak for yourself. I have no nostalgia for these games, as I was a small kid when they were released and only played the Enhanced Editions after playting Pillars of Eternity and I loved every second of it. From the character creation to the end slides in ToB.
Like any massive CRPG getting to know the system is fun and not repelling at all, the combat is tactical and you have so many options, the dialogue is fun, it is one of the very few games that made me laugh out lout playing.

This two games have too much in common to compare.... But yes, this is just my opinion and my personal experience.
Posted By: Emulate Re: How does BG3 compare to BG2? - 04/04/21 05:14 PM
BG2 is better, BG3 has a lot of issues many of which will likely never be fixed... BG3 doesn't even have proper fog of war so its not even really on the same level as it doesn't even abide by RPG standards set 30 years ago, fails on many levels.
Posted By: vometia Re: How does BG3 compare to BG2? - 04/04/21 06:20 PM
Originally Posted by Emulate
BG2 is better, BG3 has a lot of issues many of which will likely never be fixed... BG3 doesn't even have proper fog of war so its not even really on the same level as it doesn't even abide by RPG standards set 30 years ago, fails on many levels.

Please don't try to reintroduce that discussion yet again. Thanks.
Posted By: Rhobar121 Re: How does BG3 compare to BG2? - 04/04/21 10:20 PM
Originally Posted by Emulate
BG2 is better, BG3 has a lot of issues many of which will likely never be fixed... BG3 doesn't even have proper fog of war so its not even really on the same level as it doesn't even abide by RPG standards set 30 years ago, fails on many levels.

If I was nasty I would say that 30 years of mechanics should be where they belong that is in the past.
But since I'm not, I won't say it smile
Posted By: etonbears Re: How does BG3 compare to BG2? - 04/04/21 10:35 PM
Originally Posted by Nyloth
Originally Posted by Danielbda
Originally Posted by Nyloth
Originally Posted by mr_planescapist
Yea BG1 and BG2 was SOOO boring and dated and bad and old style and cheesy and UN-D&D and xxxxxx.... they decided to spend MILLIONS and a team of 300 plus developers all around the world to make a trilogy.
Alright then.
This all confirms to me that....They are only two kinds of people. Ones that played the original games in 1996~1999 and others who did not. Or just played the awful Enhanced Edition versions for an hour...or two.

I believe that it is very important when you have played these games. If this was one of your first games, then, of course, your impressions of it should be amazing. But if you try to play it now and before you had no experience in such games like this, then everything will repel you. Starting with the interface and ending with the personalities of the characters. In fact, having experience in new games is very difficult to play the old ones.
You should speak for yourself. I have no nostalgia for these games, as I was a small kid when they were released and only played the Enhanced Editions after playting Pillars of Eternity and I loved every second of it. From the character creation to the end slides in ToB.
Like any massive CRPG getting to know the system is fun and not repelling at all, the combat is tactical and you have so many options, the dialogue is fun, it is one of the very few games that made me laugh out lout playing.

This two games have too much in common to compare.... But yes, this is just my opinion and my personal experience.

Your are right that there are definitely *some* gamers who played old titles near the time of release and have an irrational reverence for them.

I certainly liked BG1/2 when I played them near release ( I actually played BG2 before going back to play BG1 ), because they were genuinely advanced RPGs at the time, with good, varied story structure, and I was familiar with DnD, so I appreciated the mechanics.

But I will be both surprised and disappointed if, after playing the release version, I do not consider BG3 to be the better game. With 20 years of graphic and audio presentation advances, and sufficient budget to tell a compelling story, the advantages enjoyed by Larian should simply be too great for BG3 to be objectively inferior to BG1/2.

The biggest negative that I can see ( for me, anyway ) is the lack of any sense of real time, both with the game world in general, and in the use of turn-based gameplay, which will inevitably bother me in BG3 as they do in other RPGs. But I still expect to consider BG3 to be the superior game.
Posted By: Sozz Re: How does BG3 compare to BG2? - 05/04/21 01:16 AM
you shouldn't really compare BG3 to BG2 yet. But as far as introductions go, the introduction of Irenicus and Imoen and dungeon crawl to the Promenade are head in shoulders above our brief jaunt through hell and all the vague Absolute stuff.

But I'm someone who still enjoys going back the BG2 so maybe my opinion is colored by years of hind-sight. I can't be really sure what my first impression of BG2's intro was, except that it was heady and made me want to rush through the game to save a friend from being tortured (I was a more naive gamer then). I'll have a better impression of BG3 when, or if, they make the tadpole into a more effective ticking clock.
Posted By: ash elemental Re: How does BG3 compare to BG2? - 05/04/21 04:54 AM
Originally Posted by Sozz
you shouldn't really compare BG3 to BG2 yet. But as far as introductions go, the introduction of Irenicus and Imoen and dungeon crawl to the Promenade are head in shoulders above our brief jaunt through hell and all the vague Absolute stuff.

But I'm someone who still enjoys going back the BG2 so maybe my opinion is colored by years of hind-sight. I can't be really sure what my first impression of BG2's intro was, except that it was heady and made me want to rush through the game to save a friend from being tortured (I was a more naive gamer then). I'll have a better impression of BG3 when, or if, they make the tadpole into a more effective ticking clock.
I prefer BG1's intruduction.

BG2's assumed that you've travelled with this predefined partt (Imoen, Jaheira, Minsc, Khalid and Dynaheir) in BG1. Even if it happened that these npcs died in your BG1 playthrough, which is pretty immersion breaking right from the start, imo. And then they made Imoen a Bhaalspawn, never explaining why her essence didn't return to the throne upon death as with other Bhaalspawn characters, including the main one.
Posted By: etonbears Re: How does BG3 compare to BG2? - 05/04/21 12:32 PM
Originally Posted by Sozz
you shouldn't really compare BG3 to BG2 yet. But as far as introductions go, the introduction of Irenicus and Imoen and dungeon crawl to the Promenade are head in shoulders above our brief jaunt through hell and all the vague Absolute stuff.

But I'm someone who still enjoys going back the BG2 so maybe my opinion is colored by years of hind-sight. I can't be really sure what my first impression of BG2's intro was, except that it was heady and made me want to rush through the game to save a friend from being tortured (I was a more naive gamer then). I'll have a better impression of BG3 when, or if, they make the tadpole into a more effective ticking clock.

Literally ticking clocks are actually quite rare as they can be very limiting in how a game is played. Neither BG1 nor BG2 had a ticking clock, even though they had day/night passage of time. And we already know that the BG3 tadpole is quiescent to some degree.

What all 3 games share is an underlying sense of peril ( Sarevok, Irenicus/Bodhi, Tadpole/Absolute ) that serves as a narrative hook. However, you can easily "bunk off" in all 3 games to investigate everything that is not gated behind story arcs. Usually, in a first playthrough, I will largely follow the central plot with few diversions; but you can easily justify a slower pace as needing to gain the additional power to succeed.

To me, the story elements so far look promising and potentially complex; but I will withold judgement, as many games start with interesting scene-setting, only to taper off into a bland finale.
Posted By: Rhobar121 Re: How does BG3 compare to BG2? - 05/04/21 02:33 PM
At the moment, it's hard to compare companions or storylines to BG2.
We don't even have the entire first act, along with quests for most of the companions.
Although even now the game is better than BG1 which has aged tragically in almost every way.
Posted By: Gt27mustang Re: How does BG3 compare to BG2? - 05/04/21 04:16 PM
Originally Posted by vometia
Originally Posted by Emulate
BG2 is better, BG3 has a lot of issues many of which will likely never be fixed... BG3 doesn't even have proper fog of war so its not even really on the same level as it doesn't even abide by RPG standards set 30 years ago, fails on many levels.

Please don't try to reintroduce that discussion yet again. Thanks.

Really not trying to reintroduce a discussion, just have this to say to Emulate: First, you DON'T KNOW if the issues you mentioned (or didn't) will ever get fixed. Second, I truly believe the fog of war is overrated. It doesn't mean that because BG1 did it that BG3 HAS to do it. It doesn't define what a BG game is. And, way too easy to abuse it also. Personally, I'm glad it's gone.
Posted By: Sozz Re: How does BG3 compare to BG2? - 05/04/21 07:14 PM
Originally Posted by ash elemental
Originally Posted by Sozz
you shouldn't really compare BG3 to BG2 yet. But as far as introductions go, the introduction of Irenicus and Imoen and dungeon crawl to the Promenade are head in shoulders above our brief jaunt through hell and all the vague Absolute stuff.

But I'm someone who still enjoys going back the BG2 so maybe my opinion is colored by years of hind-sight. I can't be really sure what my first impression of BG2's intro was, except that it was heady and made me want to rush through the game to save a friend from being tortured (I was a more naive gamer then). I'll have a better impression of BG3 when, or if, they make the tadpole into a more effective ticking clock.
I prefer BG1's intruduction.

BG2's assumed that you've travelled with this predefined partt (Imoen, Jaheira, Minsc, Khalid and Dynaheir) in BG1. Even if it happened that these npcs died in your BG1 playthrough, which is pretty immersion breaking right from the start, imo. And then they made Imoen a Bhaalspawn, never explaining why her essence didn't return to the throne upon death as with other Bhaalspawn characters, including the main one.

"Hello Xzar...I seem to remember you being dead..." ; "Nevermind that!...have a quest!" There were some things in Baldur's Gate you just had to roll with, the Heisenberg world-state of your BG1 narrative was one of those things :p but I get it.
I agree with you that making Imoen a secret child of Bhaal feels like a hasty story choice, but as far as death goes in D&D in general I tend to already be rolling my eyes, nobody really died, they're just mostly dead...except when you're gibbed of course.
And Imoen's revelation does nothing to detract from the introduction for me, I like BG:1's intro too but it doesn't get me as invested in the plot as the introduction in BG2 does.
Originally Posted by etonbears
Literally ticking clocks are actually quite rare as they can be very limiting in how a game is played. Neither BG1 nor BG2 had a ticking clock, even though they had day/night passage of time. And we already know that the BG3 tadpole is quiescent to some degree.

What all 3 games share is an underlying sense of peril ( Sarevok, Irenicus/Bodhi, Tadpole/Absolute ) that serves as a narrative hook. However, you can easily "bunk off" in all 3 games to investigate everything that is not gated behind story arcs. Usually, in a first playthrough, I will largely follow the central plot with few diversions; but you can easily justify a slower pace as needing to gain the additional power to succeed.

To me, the story elements so far look promising and potentially complex; but I will withold judgement, as many games start with interesting scene-setting, only to taper off into a bland finale.
Ticking clocks don't need to be literal to spur the narrative along, video games are interesting because they allow for them to actually be literal, but in most stories they serve as a way of adding tension and drama to every choice the character makes. If the tadpole in BG:3 was turned into a literal ticking clock, that would be fantastic but I would enjoy just as much a more clear introduction of their danger, as it is we have a scary thing in our head, everyone tell us how we need to be rushing to find a cure, but then everything else that happens in the first Act undercuts that as you dither around.
I was comparing introductions between BG2 and BG3, I was frustrated (in a good way) by the hurdles placed before me at the end of BG2's intro, while for BG3 I question the motivation of my character and the party.
Posted By: etonbears Re: How does BG3 compare to BG2? - 05/04/21 08:04 PM
Originally Posted by Sozz
<snip>

To me, the story elements so far look promising and potentially complex; but I will withold judgement, as many games start with interesting scene-setting, only to taper off into a bland finale.
Ticking clocks don't need to be literal to spur the narrative along, video games are interesting because they allow for them to actually be literal, but in most stories they serve as a way of adding tension and drama to every choice the character makes. If the tadpole in BG:3 was turned into a literal ticking clock, that would be fantastic but I would enjoy just as much a more clear introduction of their danger, as it is we have a scary thing in our head, everyone tell us how we need to be rushing to find a cure, but then everything else that happens in the first Act undercuts that as you dither around.
I was comparing introductions between BG2 and BG3, I was frustrated (in a good way) by the hurdles placed before me at the end of BG2's intro, while for BG3 I question the motivation of my character and the party.[/quote]

Hmmm. Well, a literal "ticking clock" tadpole would lead to a pretty short game smile , since the host brain is devoured within hours. And ( if I remember correctly ), the first long rest conversations make it very clear that there is something unexpected happening. As do almost any and every conversation you have with anyone that claims they can heal you, but ( surprise ) find they can't.

I don't think we are really disagreeing; a good story has a narrative hook that drives you forward, and in BG3, "fear" of the tadpole is it, at least for the average "good-aligned" player. Shadowheart and Lae'zel, being sensible ladies, take the view that getting rid of the tadpole is paramount; but Astarion certainly doesn't, and both Wyll and Gale are curious about alternatives. We don't yet know other companions will think, but I suspect that any miniature giant space hamster that appears in the game will have a low opinion of tadpoles.

I don't know that BG2 ( which I preferred over BG1 ) was particularly narratively good after leaving Irenicus dungeon. The narrative pull was that you needed to free Imoen, but you couldn't do it directly, and were pretty much forced to run around doing side content to the point where you realised that there wasn't really that much urgency. At least, that was the way I felt. What made BG2 interesting for me was that, as you engaged in the side content, it began to weave a larger web of interactions between different actors. I see a lot of that in the way BG3 is constructed, but we are all different, so maybe you don't.


Mod edit to snip quoted post: Please reduce the size of any long posts being quoted. Use <snip>, selective quoting or spoilers.
Posted By: Sozz Re: How does BG3 compare to BG2? - 05/04/21 08:21 PM
I don't think we disagree either, I'm sorry if I was coming across that way.

How about this, every long rest you take stat damage; such as -1 CON, or every use of the Tadpole tests WIS, on a fail you take 1 permanent WIS damage, until a point at which you no longer have the choice *not* to use the tadpole. All these healers we run to in Act 1 can't cure us, but they can heal some of this damage(resetting the clock somewhat), or give us a bonus during these rolls. Ability score damage is very outre in current D&D but it certainly would up the peril of having been experimented by some Illithids.
It's really the lack of fear where I have issues, you don't have to be good-aligned to not want to use the tadpole, especially after the first time, just look at our evil/neutral party, only Astarion is gung-ho about using the tadpole, and there's probably more going on there too.
If we were undergoing a clear process, one that active use of the tadpole accelerated, you'd be getting more out our "Hook"/ Ticking Clock.

As for BG2, like I said, I was a more naive gamer then, but even now, especially with the game "checking in" with Imoen at Spellhold, I am fully on board for making a bee-line to her rescue, but I understand how on a metanarrative level you understand that there is really no consequence for not saving Imoen as soon as possible, but in terms of having a clear goal and narrative justification to do so in a timely manner, BG:2 does it better than 1 or 3(so far)
Posted By: Rhobar121 Re: How does BG3 compare to BG2? - 05/04/21 08:36 PM
I can already see a shout on the forums if Larian actually dared to introduce a time limit for the game.
Most likely the forum would be dead.
Even in the case of Pathfinder, a lot of people complained about it and it was rather a game aimed at more hardcore rpg fans.
Posted By: Black_Elk Re: How does BG3 compare to BG2? - 06/04/21 09:45 PM
One of the things that still stands out in my mind for the BG saga and all the old Infinity games, was just the steady clip at which its expansions and sequel were released.

For the time, and even by todays standards, they cranked those games out in what felt like a new entry like every six months for couple years running.

I recall picking up Baldur's Gate at Fry's at Christmas time, thinking it might be cool cause it was sitting right next to Fallout on the shelf. The Tales of the Sword coast expansion was out what, like a couple months later. For sure by the summer of 99, cause I remember playing it right after graduating, and by the time Durlags was dunzo they hit us with Planescape almost immediately. I remember it was plugged by a trailer showing Sigil on the ToSC cd, because that was the load disc for the main BG game and always in the drive lol. There was a little lull for BG2 to come out, like long enough to get mailed a t-shirt, but in the lead up they dropped Icewind Dale which was basically BG1.5, since the engine and gameplay was the same. It was basically the same as creating a 6 person party in BG:ToSC using the multiplayer lan but as a single player to create a custom party. Plus it had the killer art for the portraits, which was all cross compatible. So by the time you were done with that Shadows of Amn was on.

What all that did was to create sense of continuity, or an expectation of continuity/compatibility for a serialized D&D game on par with the gold boxes of the late 80s. Like where the same basic engine and systems would be used to do more than a single campaign. Which was cool cause it hadn't been that way in a while. And of course TSR had just imploded so that didn't bode well too well, but then those infinity games made D&D a hit again on the sneak attack. Just long enough in the stopgap for the Wizards to take over and crank out a new edition and new crpg game engine with NWN. I feel like that's what's missing a bit right now, that sense that there's for sure more stuff coming down the pike. I'd guess the Wizards were hoping that a D&D entry using the divinity engine could work in a similar way? Like to do a serialized thing piggybacking on Larian's obvious success with DOS by grafting it onto that, the same way they used Interplay's success with Fallout. My main hope is that this isn't just a one off. Basically so the convo can go how does "Infinity compare to Divinity?" rather than 'how to does BG3 hold up to BG2?" If that makes any sense
Posted By: Tabuk Re: How does BG3 compare to BG2? - 07/04/21 04:18 PM
Can you compare BG2 to BG3? I don't think you can. Gaming and computers have evolved so much, its apples and oranges. Two completely different things. Like comparing a book to a movie, simply because they both have "stories"
Posted By: Sozz Re: How does BG3 compare to BG2? - 07/04/21 05:46 PM
Originally Posted by Tabuk
Can you compare BG2 to BG3? I don't think you can. Gaming and computers have evolved so much, its apples and oranges. Two completely different things. Like comparing a book to a movie, simply because they both have "stories"
Uh...first you can compare books and movies...second, these are both D&D CRPGs set in the same universe, it's more like comparing 2nd edition to 5th edition, which has multiple threads here I think.
Posted By: mrfuji3 Re: How does BG3 compare to BG2? - 07/04/21 05:52 PM
Originally Posted by Tabuk
Can you compare BG2 to BG3? I don't think you can. Gaming and computers have evolved so much, its apples and oranges. Two completely different things. Like comparing a book to a movie, simply because they both have "stories"
I mean, you totally can compare those things. Apples are simpler to eat as you can just eat the skin and there are less juices, whereas you have to peel an orange.

Books are compared to movies all the time. See every single book that is made into a movie. The Hobbit book was short and sweet, whereas the Hobbit movies were needlessly drawn out into 3 installments and had unnecessary cameos and love stories. Harry Potter movies took a lot Ron's good points and gave them to Hermione, making Ron a much less sympathetic character. LOTR movies are much more compressed than the books, arguably a good thing making for a tighter and more enjoyable experience.

If we move away from direct book-to-movie adaptations, you can still compare a lot of things between them. Books are better at showing character's thought processes whereas movies have to show this through character's actions or dialogue. Intro hooks are vastly more important in books, as you'll probably still watch a movie if its first 5 minutes is meh, but a boring 1st chapter of a book can put you off from the large time investment.

It's reasonable to compare BG3 and BG2, as long as you keep the time and D&D version differences in mind. E.g., day-night cycle is totally a thing that could be in BG3, and its lack compared to BG2 makes the world less immersive. BG3 is turn-based, meaning that it's easier to micromanage all your characters and there are less trash fights, at the cost of combat speed. Etc
Posted By: Tabuk Re: How does BG3 compare to BG2? - 08/04/21 04:47 AM
Originally Posted by mrfuji3
Originally Posted by Tabuk
Can you compare BG2 to BG3? I don't think you can. Gaming and computers have evolved so much, its apples and oranges. Two completely different things. Like comparing a book to a movie, simply because they both have "stories"
I mean, you totally can compare those things. Apples are simpler to eat as you can just eat the skin and there are less juices, whereas you have to peel an orange.

Books are compared to movies all the time. See every single book that is made into a movie. The Hobbit book was short and sweet, whereas the Hobbit movies were needlessly drawn out into 3 installments and had unnecessary cameos and love stories. Harry Potter movies took a lot Ron's good points and gave them to Hermione, making Ron a much less sympathetic character. LOTR movies are much more compressed than the books, arguably a good thing making for a tighter and more enjoyable experience.

If we move away from direct book-to-movie adaptations, you can still compare a lot of things between them. Books are better at showing character's thought processes whereas movies have to show this through character's actions or dialogue. Intro hooks are vastly more important in books, as you'll probably still watch a movie if its first 5 minutes is meh, but a boring 1st chapter of a book can put you off from the large time investment.

It's reasonable to compare BG3 and BG2, as long as you keep the time and D&D version differences in mind. E.g., day-night cycle is totally a thing that could be in BG3, and its lack compared to BG2 makes the world less immersive. BG3 is turn-based, meaning that it's easier to micromanage all your characters and there are less trash fights, at the cost of combat speed. Etc

you are smart enough to know, that I meant you can't constructively compare the two.

You can compare the NY Giants to the Dallas Cowboys, talk about the strength and weakness of each team in a constructive way. BUT comparing the 2020 Dallas Cowboys to the 1950 NY Yankees would be a waste of time, no valuable information could be obtained by that comparison, there are to many differences to talk about.

Comparing BG2 to BG3 is a waste of time, there are to many differences and not on the same, mmmm, anything.

"hey man you can compare anything dummy" is sort of not the point, and well, I think you know that. But instead of addressing my point or not addressing it, you made up a story , that had nothing to do with what anyone was saying.
Posted By: mrfuji3 Re: How does BG3 compare to BG2? - 08/04/21 02:40 PM
Originally Posted by Tabuk
you are smart enough to know, that I meant you can't constructively compare the two.

You can compare the NY Giants to the Dallas Cowboys, talk about the strength and weakness of each team in a constructive way. BUT comparing the 2020 Dallas Cowboys to the 1950 NY Yankees would be a waste of time, no valuable information could be obtained by that comparison, there are to many differences to talk about.

Comparing BG2 to BG3 is a waste of time, there are to many differences and not on the same, mmmm, anything.

"hey man you can compare anything dummy" is sort of not the point, and well, I think you know that. But instead of addressing my point or not addressing it, you made up a story , that had nothing to do with what anyone was saying.
What do you think about the following comparisons?
Originally Posted by mrfuji3
It's reasonable to compare BG3 and BG2, as long as you keep the time and D&D version differences in mind. E.g., day-night cycle is totally a thing that could be in BG3, and its lack compared to BG2 makes the world less immersive. BG3 is turn-based, meaning that it's easier to micromanage all your characters and there are less trash fights, at the cost of combat speed [and smoothness of transition between exploring and combat].
I think these are constructive comparisons.
Posted By: andreasrylander Re: How does BG3 compare to BG2? - 08/04/21 02:49 PM
I honestly feel that the "trash fights" are sorely lacking in BG3. Sometimes it is nice to have fights that are fairly easy and make your characters feel powerful. As for day/night cycles, I feel that is mostly based on the story being told. Perhaps there are segments in the game later on where there are night missions?
Posted By: Rhobar121 Re: How does BG3 compare to BG2? - 08/04/21 05:18 PM
Originally Posted by andreasrylander
I honestly feel that the "trash fights" are sorely lacking in BG3. Sometimes it is nice to have fights that are fairly easy and make your characters feel powerful. As for day/night cycles, I feel that is mostly based on the story being told. Perhaps there are segments in the game later on where there are night missions?


Trash battles are the worst way to waste a player's time. They are neither interesting nor demanding in any way.
I definitely prefer situations in which every fight is at least a medium challenge.
Posted By: andreasrylander Re: How does BG3 compare to BG2? - 08/04/21 06:10 PM
Originally Posted by Rhobar121
Originally Posted by andreasrylander
I honestly feel that the "trash fights" are sorely lacking in BG3. Sometimes it is nice to have fights that are fairly easy and make your characters feel powerful. As for day/night cycles, I feel that is mostly based on the story being told. Perhaps there are segments in the game later on where there are night missions?


Trash battles are the worst way to waste a player's time. They are neither interesting nor demanding in any way.
I definitely prefer situations in which every fight is at least a medium challenge.

Ahh but it doesn't have to be a waste of time! For instance, what if your evil assassin character sneaks into a shop and assassinates a shopkeeper without that turning into a 15 minute brawl with legions of guards that are perfectly set up across the shop?
Or perhaps you decide to rob a vagrant by the wayside?
Posted By: ShimmerUK Re: How does BG3 compare to BG2? - 08/04/21 06:33 PM
To be Blunt it does not compare there to entirely different games set in the same world is all to be fair it would have been more accurate to call Baldurs Gate Orginal Bhaal Spawn Saga And I would argue this would be the Illythid Saga.
Then there the way Bioware Implemented D&D 2nd Edition Advanced rules and they went with RTWP with the formations in a 6 man squad and because of this, they have entirely different gameplay and styles.

I find with RTWP you get more low-level mobs through in if nothing else to make your feel powerful and got to admit I kinda like this faster pace game but still have to pause for the big fight to micromanage to make sure your support do not get caught out.

I find TB slower paced I mean you can go get cuppa take it easy more relaxed can still be super tough fights but will tend to be fewer mobs and I would say every fight is much more intense because of it.

I am finding the 4 man squad limit with the chain system rather constrictive tho but I suppose it adds to the challenge and you're defo gonna have to go without something.

To be honest of Recent the only game I found got close to BG2 feeling is Pathfinder: Kingmaker and that not tech DND rules it a take on them but I had the same kind of feeling I had when I played BG2 I say BG2 because I pref that one over BG it took everything Bauldurs Gate did and Turned the Diles way up

I agree with the peeps on the NPC chrs only one I kinda like is Lae'zel but she hates me cus I a goody-two-shoes saving the Tieflings and druids but I still kind of like here chr more than the other the worse being the Twilight Vampire oh god why.
Posted By: Sozz Re: How does BG3 compare to BG2? - 08/04/21 08:50 PM
I've been comparing BG2 and BG3 almost solely on their stories but that's because it's the most interesting part to me. That said the differences between a 6 and 4 man squad can certainly change the tenor of combat encounters but I think this has more to do with the relative power curves between 2nd and 5th edition than anything

I'd would put Kingmaker much closer to BG:1 than BG:2 and really just the first Act of Baldur's Gate.
Posted By: andreasrylander Re: How does BG3 compare to BG2? - 08/04/21 09:43 PM
I still remain hopeful there will be many more ties to the stories of BG1 and 2. So far there seems to be a lot of story complexity hiding, just waiting to be revealed. Lots of promising stuff! I recommend Harbs Narbs videos on Youtube for lots of theories and lore! =)
Posted By: ShimmerUK Re: How does BG3 compare to BG2? - 09/04/21 06:02 PM
Originally Posted by Sozz
I've been comparing BG2 and BG3 almost solely on their stories but that's because it's the most interesting part to me. That said the differences between a 6 and 4 man squad can certainly change the tenor of combat encounters but I think this has more to do with the relative power curves between 2nd and 5th edition than anything

I would put Kingmaker much closer to BG:1 than BG:2 and really just the first Act of Baldur's Gate.

I agree with you the story is important but it doesn't really help in comparing the games I mean in that sense these are totally different games even if it references the original BG stories later as well as maybe its impact on the world is more like a backdrop to this story but still makes this its own story

Hmm I will have to disagree on Kingmaker I've played BG:1 Enhanced all the way through and it's got a different play style maybe the early levels feel more like BG1 but once your hitting 10+ lvs more like BG2 so could say both really.
Posted By: robertthebard Re: How does BG3 compare to BG2? - 10/04/21 04:28 PM
Originally Posted by Sozz
Originally Posted by ash elemental
Originally Posted by Sozz
you shouldn't really compare BG3 to BG2 yet. But as far as introductions go, the introduction of Irenicus and Imoen and dungeon crawl to the Promenade are head in shoulders above our brief jaunt through hell and all the vague Absolute stuff.

But I'm someone who still enjoys going back the BG2 so maybe my opinion is colored by years of hind-sight. I can't be really sure what my first impression of BG2's intro was, except that it was heady and made me want to rush through the game to save a friend from being tortured (I was a more naive gamer then). I'll have a better impression of BG3 when, or if, they make the tadpole into a more effective ticking clock.
I prefer BG1's intruduction.

BG2's assumed that you've travelled with this predefined partt (Imoen, Jaheira, Minsc, Khalid and Dynaheir) in BG1. Even if it happened that these npcs died in your BG1 playthrough, which is pretty immersion breaking right from the start, imo. And then they made Imoen a Bhaalspawn, never explaining why her essence didn't return to the throne upon death as with other Bhaalspawn characters, including the main one.

"Hello Xzar...I seem to remember you being dead..." ; "Nevermind that!...have a quest!" There were some things in Baldur's Gate you just had to roll with, the Heisenberg world-state of your BG1 narrative was one of those things :p but I get it.
I agree with you that making Imoen a secret child of Bhaal feels like a hasty story choice, but as far as death goes in D&D in general I tend to already be rolling my eyes, nobody really died, they're just mostly dead...except when you're gibbed of course.
And Imoen's revelation does nothing to detract from the introduction for me, I like BG:1's intro too but it doesn't get me as invested in the plot as the introduction in BG2 does.
Originally Posted by etonbears
Literally ticking clocks are actually quite rare as they can be very limiting in how a game is played. Neither BG1 nor BG2 had a ticking clock, even though they had day/night passage of time. And we already know that the BG3 tadpole is quiescent to some degree.

What all 3 games share is an underlying sense of peril ( Sarevok, Irenicus/Bodhi, Tadpole/Absolute ) that serves as a narrative hook. However, you can easily "bunk off" in all 3 games to investigate everything that is not gated behind story arcs. Usually, in a first playthrough, I will largely follow the central plot with few diversions; but you can easily justify a slower pace as needing to gain the additional power to succeed.

To me, the story elements so far look promising and potentially complex; but I will withold judgement, as many games start with interesting scene-setting, only to taper off into a bland finale.
Ticking clocks don't need to be literal to spur the narrative along, video games are interesting because they allow for them to actually be literal, but in most stories they serve as a way of adding tension and drama to every choice the character makes. If the tadpole in BG:3 was turned into a literal ticking clock, that would be fantastic but I would enjoy just as much a more clear introduction of their danger, as it is we have a scary thing in our head, everyone tell us how we need to be rushing to find a cure, but then everything else that happens in the first Act undercuts that as you dither around.
I was comparing introductions between BG2 and BG3, I was frustrated (in a good way) by the hurdles placed before me at the end of BG2's intro, while for BG3 I question the motivation of my character and the party.

At this stage, I'm not sure a "fair" comparison can be made. Even with potential plot holes of "but you were dead in BG 1", we still knew who these companions were. We had all the background information we needed, in the intro, to fall right back in "where we left off", even if it wasn't really where we left off. In this case, we're closer to what we had in BG 1 instead. We're learning who we are, and who the companions are, as we go. Gameplay mechanics aside, this is exactly the same situation we were in during the intro to BG 1. Sarevok wants to kill us, but why? Who is Sarevok? What's up with Naskell? All things that have parallels here, to one extent or another. The problem being, since this is EA, we're not going to get any satisfying answers. We are, after all, not getting enough of the game to have any chance at getting them. I'm not "blown away" by the current iteration, but, I didn't expect to be. I expected to get something along the lines of what we got, since it's literally for testing out things, and seeing what does and doesn't work. My interest is piqued, but that's about it, so far. I've made a conscious decision to avoid playing overmuch, because I don't want to burn out on it before release, and considering my history with the franchise, I really want to love it, but it's too early to tell, right now.
Posted By: Sozz Re: How does BG3 compare to BG2? - 10/04/21 09:42 PM
Originally Posted by robertthebard
Originally Posted by Sozz
you shouldn't really compare BG3 to BG2 yet. But as far as introductions go, the introduction of Irenicus and Imoen and dungeon crawl to the Promenade are head in shoulders above our brief jaunt through hell and all the vague Absolute stuff.
...
At this stage, I'm not sure a "fair" comparison can be made. Even with potential plot holes of "but you were dead in BG 1", we still knew who these companions were. We had all the background information we needed, in the intro, to fall right back in "where we left off", even if it wasn't really where we left off. In this case, we're closer to what we had in BG 1 instead. We're learning who we are, and who the companions are, as we go. Gameplay mechanics aside, this is exactly the same situation we were in during the intro to BG 1. Sarevok wants to kill us, but why? Who is Sarevok? What's up with Naskell? All things that have parallels here, to one extent or another. The problem being, since this is EA, we're not going to get any satisfying answers. We are, after all, not getting enough of the game to have any chance at getting them. I'm not "blown away" by the current iteration, but, I didn't expect to be. I expected to get something along the lines of what we got, since it's literally for testing out things, and seeing what does and doesn't work. My interest is piqued, but that's about it, so far. I've made a conscious decision to avoid playing overmuch, because I don't want to burn out on it before release, and considering my history with the franchise, I really want to love it, but it's too early to tell, right now.

I agree with you, but it's also true that Baldur's Gate II was created to be accessible as a first game more than as a sequel, a short coming of a lot of multipart games (for people in for the long haul anyway). So for comparison I do think we can look at the intros of Baldur's Gate 1, 2 and 3 and how they do a few things, such as setting up your character, the world and your reason for adventure.
I think Baldur's Gate II's intro has the most distinct setting of the three, and does the best at tying your adventure with your narrative, Baldur's Gate 1 is the least linear when it starts out so it does the least to push you into its main story, which depending on how much of a sandbox player you are might make it the best of the three.

I too am happy with Baldur's Gate 3 but I find that the introduction does a lot to undercut the tension it starts to build up from its start being experimented on by Mind-Flayers, that ticking clock I was talking about. Something I think Baldur's Gate 3 does better in its first act than any of the other games is subtly cluing you in that all your companions have distinct pasts and are probably tied to the main story more than they know, or are letting on.

But the evolution of the NPC since the 90s has been pretty big.
Posted By: etonbears Re: How does BG3 compare to BG2? - 10/04/21 10:08 PM

Originally Posted by Sozz
I don't think we disagree either, I'm sorry if I was coming across that way.

How about this, every long rest you take stat damage; such as -1 CON, or every use of the Tadpole tests WIS, on a fail you take 1 permanent WIS damage, until a point at which you no longer have the choice *not* to use the tadpole. All these healers we run to in Act 1 can't cure us, but they can heal some of this damage(resetting the clock somewhat), or give us a bonus during these rolls. Ability score damage is very outre in current D&D but it certainly would up the peril of having been experimented by some Illithids.
It's really the lack of fear where I have issues, you don't have to be good-aligned to not want to use the tadpole, especially after the first time, just look at our evil/neutral party, only Astarion is gung-ho about using the tadpole, and there's probably more going on there too.
If we were undergoing a clear process, one that active use of the tadpole accelerated, you'd be getting more out our "Hook"/ Ticking Clock.

As for BG2, like I said, I was a more naive gamer then, but even now, especially with the game "checking in" with Imoen at Spellhold, I am fully on board for making a bee-line to her rescue, but I understand how on a metanarrative level you understand that there is really no consequence for not saving Imoen as soon as possible, but in terms of having a clear goal and narrative justification to do so in a timely manner, BG:2 does it better than 1 or 3(so far)

No, we were just expressing similar things in a different way, but thankyou for your concern.

I agree, there is definitely something not quite right with the the way the tadpole is handled at the moment. All you seem to have is a binary choice to keep using it, gain benefits and go down the dark path, or ... not. There's also the fact that everyone in the party has a tadpole, yet all conversations seem to imply that only the face character matters, which doesn't sit particularly well in the narrative.

I'm prepared to believe that this is not how it will play out for the released game, and I do also understand that Larian are trying to weave together a fairly complex set of alternate paths, which is quite challenging when the most sophisticated tool you have is a branching dialog tree.

I'd certainly be happy with a tadpole-related debuff on long rest, if only to have something to point to for those that complain that you shouldn't be able to rest whenever you are tired. smile But I don't know how well this would sit with all players, as the player base is much wider and less geeky than it used to be. I can't imagine, for example, that the play difficulties imposed by the spirit-eater in Mask of the Betrayer would be seen veey positively by Larian's core co-op MP user base.
Posted By: robertthebard Re: How does BG3 compare to BG2? - 10/04/21 10:13 PM
Originally Posted by Sozz
Originally Posted by robertthebard
Originally Posted by Sozz
you shouldn't really compare BG3 to BG2 yet. But as far as introductions go, the introduction of Irenicus and Imoen and dungeon crawl to the Promenade are head in shoulders above our brief jaunt through hell and all the vague Absolute stuff.
...
At this stage, I'm not sure a "fair" comparison can be made. Even with potential plot holes of "but you were dead in BG 1", we still knew who these companions were. We had all the background information we needed, in the intro, to fall right back in "where we left off", even if it wasn't really where we left off. In this case, we're closer to what we had in BG 1 instead. We're learning who we are, and who the companions are, as we go. Gameplay mechanics aside, this is exactly the same situation we were in during the intro to BG 1. Sarevok wants to kill us, but why? Who is Sarevok? What's up with Naskell? All things that have parallels here, to one extent or another. The problem being, since this is EA, we're not going to get any satisfying answers. We are, after all, not getting enough of the game to have any chance at getting them. I'm not "blown away" by the current iteration, but, I didn't expect to be. I expected to get something along the lines of what we got, since it's literally for testing out things, and seeing what does and doesn't work. My interest is piqued, but that's about it, so far. I've made a conscious decision to avoid playing overmuch, because I don't want to burn out on it before release, and considering my history with the franchise, I really want to love it, but it's too early to tell, right now.

I agree with you, but it's also true that Baldur's Gate II was created to be accessible as a first game more than as a sequel, a short coming of a lot of multipart games (for people in for the long haul anyway). So for comparison I do think we can look at the intros of Baldur's Gate 1, 2 and 3 and how they do a few things, such as setting up your character, the world and your reason for adventure.
I think Baldur's Gate II's intro has the most distinct setting of the three, and does the best at tying your adventure with your narrative, Baldur's Gate 1 is the least linear when it starts out so it does the least to push you into its main story, which depending on how much of a sandbox player you are might make it the best of the three.

I too am happy with Baldur's Gate 3 but I find that the introduction does a lot to undercut the tension it starts to build up from its start being experimented on by Mind-Flayers, that ticking clock I was talking about. Something I think Baldur's Gate 3 does better in its first act than any of the other games is subtly cluing you in that all your companions have distinct pasts and are probably tied to the main story more than they know, or are letting on.

But the evolution of the NPC since the 90s has been pretty big.

I think anyone going into BG 2 as a new player to the franchise would find themselves in the same boat as those of us that played 1 did, finding out who we are, and who these people with us are. So, by that measure, all three games are equal. I can't "unplay" the originals, as much as I wish I could, it would be great to experience them for the first time, again. So when I look at what we have, I'm more inclined to compare to 1 than 2, that's why I said "fair" comparison. Someone coming in from 2 still has the "advantage" of "knowing" the comps, even if the player isn't invested in them, the PC is assumed to be, for obvious reasons. It's not much different from starting with Mass Effect 2, or, to a lesser degree, Dragon Age 2. Coming in in the middle, or at the end, as far as we knew with BG 2 means that stuff has already happened, and the story assumes a lot of it, especially w/out things like the Dragon Age Keep, that ties your narrative to Inquisition.

But yeah, I really do want this game to be great. It's tied to an important part of my gaming "career", as it were, and if it flops, it's going to be disappointing, to say the least. It's not looking like it will flop, from where I'm sitting, I just hope it can shine.
Posted By: etonbears Re: How does BG3 compare to BG2? - 10/04/21 10:32 PM
Originally Posted by Black_Elk
One of the things that still stands out in my mind for the BG saga and all the old Infinity games, was just the steady clip at which its expansions and sequel were released.

For the time, and even by todays standards, they cranked those games out in what felt like a new entry like every six months for couple years running.
Yes, even as late as NWN2, once the engine was built, the subsequent stories came out quite quickly.

Obviously there have been changes in the last 15 years! I think it's partly the asset quality has increased so much that they are more time consuming to produce, partly the monetisation of engines is achieved through less substantial expanded content ( DLC rather than story episodes ), and partly engines seem to need updating more often to satisfy the current player base.

I have to say that I am more a fan of expansion stories than of the more common drip-drip DLC. The Witcher 3 "Blood and Wine" , for example, shows that it is still possible to do a good job with expansion stories, but it is a rare exception.
Posted By: Jalt Re: How does BG3 compare to BG2? - 11/04/21 07:24 PM
The big difference for me is the characters. I genuinely cared about Minsc (and Boo), I kept Jaheira with me as Gorion would have wanted it. I loved Edwin's arrogance and I had a crush on Viconia (I was 14). At the moment I like Gale as a character, I find Astarion intriguing but I can't work out if he wants to escape his evil ways or not. Wyll is OK but no big impressions. Shadowheart and Lae'zel are just plain annoying. I have done several play throughs of the pre-release good and evil, and rather than relaxing and playing much like I did with BG1 and BG2 I find myself on edge playing this game. One misstep and you're dead, engage in melee and your dead. I have only played the NWN and BG series. Obviously graphics and stuff have come a long way, but decision trees in coding as well as building a good story are still the same. The characters and genuinely caring for them is where it is at. Zevlor is the only character I really seem to care about.

There is no equivalent of 'Magic is impressive, but now Misc leads swords for everyone!'.....well not yet anyway.

On a plus side I must say I am really pleased to have Larian do this. Everyone is talking about DOS and DOS2 but I have never heard of them or played them. Perhaps when i've finished BG3 I'll have a look.
Posted By: Van'tal Re: How does BG3 compare to BG2? - 17/04/21 03:28 AM
Originally Posted by Jalt
The big difference for me is the characters. I genuinely cared about Minsc (and Boo), I kept Jaheira with me as Gorion would have wanted it. I loved Edwin's arrogance and I had a crush on Viconia (I was 14). At the moment I like Gale as a character, I find Astarion intriguing but I can't work out if he wants to escape his evil ways or not. Wyll is OK but no big impressions. Shadowheart and Lae'zel are just plain annoying. I have done several play throughs of the pre-release good and evil, and rather than relaxing and playing much like I did with BG1 and BG2 I find myself on edge playing this game. One misstep and you're dead, engage in melee and your dead. I have only played the NWN and BG series. Obviously graphics and stuff have come a long way, but decision trees in coding as well as building a good story are still the same. The characters and genuinely caring for them is where it is at. Zevlor is the only character I really seem to care about.

There is no equivalent of 'Magic is impressive, but now Misc leads swords for everyone!'.....well not yet anyway.

On a plus side I must say I am really pleased to have Larian do this. Everyone is talking about DOS and DOS2 but I have never heard of them or played them. Perhaps when i've finished BG3 I'll have a look.


The start is definitely different, in that you create your own background and are thrown into the action. In BG 1 you are given a background in a town , and a quest to meet Harper contacts...it felt like a D&D story.

The characters in this story feel too much like modern day, Covid-19 era, rude and crude earthlings. Being thrown into the action is a great idea...however the developers did nothing to make us feel like we were in Faerun. I want to escape the stress of a society which is in an identity crisis.

The Adventurer's Club, in the old Disney Pleasure Island was immersive because there would be thespians wandering around that would convincingly act out their memes.

So far this doesn't feel like Faerun, nor does it feel like a D&D rule set like BG1-2 did (more like DOS). It feels like its having an identity crisis.


This is BETA, where comments like this are meant to matter...so lets not take offense please.
Posted By: Adiktus Re: How does BG3 compare to BG2? - 17/04/21 02:53 PM
"A linear approach to quests"? The Kagha storyline has at least a dozen possible resolutions. There are almost as many ways to deal with the Hag. With Minthara, you can just kill her, side with her and attack the Grove, decline her offer, pretend to side with her and betray her at the Grove ... There are even multiple outcomes for Barth's stolen amulet quest.

If by linearity you mean the game forces you to do things in a particular order, yes, it does, once, in that you have to battle the goblins outside the Druid grove before you can explore beyond. Once you've done that, you can literally go anywhere and take on any quest or battle you choose. This is one of the most open and least linear games I've ever played. The only limitations on freedom are your own style of gameplay. Experiment, and ye shall find.
Posted By: robertthebard Re: How does BG3 compare to BG2? - 17/04/21 05:03 PM
Originally Posted by Van'tal
Originally Posted by Jalt
The big difference for me is the characters. I genuinely cared about Minsc (and Boo), I kept Jaheira with me as Gorion would have wanted it. I loved Edwin's arrogance and I had a crush on Viconia (I was 14). At the moment I like Gale as a character, I find Astarion intriguing but I can't work out if he wants to escape his evil ways or not. Wyll is OK but no big impressions. Shadowheart and Lae'zel are just plain annoying. I have done several play throughs of the pre-release good and evil, and rather than relaxing and playing much like I did with BG1 and BG2 I find myself on edge playing this game. One misstep and you're dead, engage in melee and your dead. I have only played the NWN and BG series. Obviously graphics and stuff have come a long way, but decision trees in coding as well as building a good story are still the same. The characters and genuinely caring for them is where it is at. Zevlor is the only character I really seem to care about.

There is no equivalent of 'Magic is impressive, but now Misc leads swords for everyone!'.....well not yet anyway.

On a plus side I must say I am really pleased to have Larian do this. Everyone is talking about DOS and DOS2 but I have never heard of them or played them. Perhaps when i've finished BG3 I'll have a look.


The start is definitely different, in that you create your own background and are thrown into the action. In BG 1 you are given a background in a town , and a quest to meet Harper contacts...it felt like a D&D story.

The characters in this story feel too much like modern day, Covid-19 era, rude and crude earthlings. Being thrown into the action is a great idea...however the developers did nothing to make us feel like we were in Faerun. I want to escape the stress of a society which is in an identity crisis.

The Adventurer's Club, in the old Disney Pleasure Island was immersive because there would be thespians wandering around that would convincingly act out their memes.

So far this doesn't feel like Faerun, nor does it feel like a D&D rule set like BG1-2 did (more like DOS). It feels like its having an identity crisis.


This is BETA, where comments like this are meant to matter...so lets not take offense please.

You can choose to create your own background, or you can use one of potential party members, if you'd prefer someone else define the basics of your character. What's ironic about this is that, in every game I've played, "Playing the dev's character" was looked at as a bad thing, not as DnD. In PnP, the DM never defined our characters, that was up to us. In BG, I defined my character. Yes, I was Bhaalspawn, but I didn't know it, at first. I didn't even know it after the ambush outside of Candlekeep. I had a quest to meet Khalid and Jaheira, but that was it. We don't have a quest to meet anyone in particular, initially, but we do have a quest to figure out what's going on in our heads. I'm not sure how not having a quest to meet some harpers means it doesn't feel like Faerun?

The comps feel like people, to me. Just as comps in BG 1 and 2 did. In that vein, they're very much like the comps in Neverwinter Nights 1 and 2. They're not fawning pawns, but they weren't in BG either. You could literally drive comps off, or worse, by virtue of your actions, or lack of action, as the case may be. Which reminds me, my characters were never overly defined by the game in BG. I had Bhaalspawn, but that's what, not who, my character was. I could be a LG Paladin type, or a CE Assassin type, or anything in between. It was totally up to me.
Posted By: virion Re: How does BG3 compare to BG2? - 24/06/21 04:26 PM
I think the tapole thing should be at 100% only a main character thing tbh. Strange choice to give it to everyone. Now every origin character has it's own backstory in the game + the tadpole and we are just the average Tav with a tadpole. And shadowheart hates us. Pyfekt.
Posted By: Zellin Re: How does BG3 compare to BG2? - 24/06/21 05:21 PM
Originally Posted by virion
I think the tapole thing should be at 100% only a main character thing tbh. Strange choice to give it to everyone. Now every origin character has it's own backstory in the game + the tadpole and we are just the average Tav with a tadpole. And shadowheart hates us. Pyfekt.
If it would be so, Lae'zel would just kill your Tav on sight, Astarion wouldn't be even able to walk with you in the daylight, Shadowheart, Wyll and Gale would go away telling you "your problems aren't mine". It's part of their backstory that they won't be there and won't be your allies if not the tadpole.
Posted By: daMichi Re: How does BG3 compare to BG2? - 24/06/21 08:57 PM
Originally Posted by Zellin
Originally Posted by virion
I think the tapole thing should be at 100% only a main character thing tbh. Strange choice to give it to everyone. Now every origin character has it's own backstory in the game + the tadpole and we are just the average Tav with a tadpole. And shadowheart hates us. Pyfekt.
If it would be so, Lae'zel would just kill your Tav on sight, Astarion wouldn't be even able to walk with you in the daylight, Shadowheart, Wyll and Gale would go away telling you "your problems aren't mine". It's part of their backstory that they won't be there and won't be your allies if not the tadpole.

Yes, and that's exactly why I don't like the origins approach.
Posted By: Boblawblah Re: How does BG3 compare to BG2? - 24/06/21 09:04 PM
Yep, that pretty much sums up why i hate the companions. Why would i want to adventure with a bunch of selfish assholes? If the only reason I'm with someone is a mutual shitty situation, that's..awful.
Posted By: mr_planescapist Re: How does BG3 compare to BG2? - 24/06/21 09:13 PM
<The characters in this story feel too much like modern day, Covid-19 era, rude and crude earthlings.>

Yea that basically sums it up for me. Doesn't feel like your in a gritty Faerun high fanstasy setting; like all the characters are modern drama cosplayers from some <westworld> town in the USA.
Posted By: Blackheifer Re: How does BG3 compare to BG2? - 24/06/21 09:48 PM
Originally Posted by mr_planescapist
<The characters in this story feel too much like modern day, Covid-19 era, rude and crude earthlings.>

Yea that basically sums it up for me. Doesn't feel like your in a gritty Faerun high fanstasy setting; like all the characters are modern drama cosplayers from some <westworld> town in the USA.

yeah but everything evolves and maybe when you are a child the characters in BG1-2 seem amazing and deep but then you grow up and you realize how shallow and simplistic they really are.

Because that's the key to universal likability in terms of writing. You make the characters as shallow as possible, or have them follow archetypes and then allow the reader to superimpose themselves onto the character. Its why Twilight was so popular, the main character was devoid of any actual personality or opinions.

And that's fine, its less of a risk for sure. What Larian is doing with these characters is the greater risk, and to some extent I think its a mistake. I don't think people are ready for this level of realism. Its why most people don't like Art. Art is work. Harry Potter is easy, Infinite Jest isn't.
Posted By: Sozz Re: How does BG3 compare to BG2? - 24/06/21 09:59 PM
I thought the characters from BG:1 were typically pretty one dimensional, BG:2 by giving everyone an arc around trauma could be hit or miss depending on how much you bought into their stories, then there's Planescape. I think they make a pretty good range for character in crpg (from that era anyway), I'm liking all our companions in BG3 so far, I think games in the past, like you've said, have been too worried about making companions likeable to the detriment of the stories they tell.

Having a bunch of companions who don't open up to you like they've been waiting all their lives for a therapist to unburden to, and might even actively despise your character can be very interesting.
Posted By: timebean Re: How does BG3 compare to BG2? - 24/06/21 10:17 PM
I kinda feel like they are going the Mass Effect 2 route in terms of flawed chars who unburden their crap on you. All of them have issues that you help them resolve with a personal sidequest. Nothing too novel there. To me, the big difference is that your custom char is boring in contrast, and it is unclear why they follow you.
Posted By: Boblawblah Re: How does BG3 compare to BG2? - 24/06/21 10:24 PM
Originally Posted by Blackheifer
I don't think people are ready for this level of realism. Its why most people don't like Art. Art is work.


I'm sorry, but seeing Shadowheart being written as a stereotypical tsundere character and trying to see that as "realism" or "art" is just...wow. I can't do it. You don't have to love Harry Potter ( i do! ) but saying these characters are art but Harry Potter characters childish or something is incorrect imo.
Posted By: Blackheifer Re: How does BG3 compare to BG2? - 24/06/21 10:40 PM
Originally Posted by Boblawblah
Originally Posted by Blackheifer
I don't think people are ready for this level of realism. Its why most people don't like Art. Art is work.


I'm sorry, but seeing Shadowheart being written as a stereotypical tsundere character and trying to see that as "realism" or "art" is just...wow. I can't do it. You don't have to love Harry Potter ( i do! ) but saying these characters are art but Harry Potter characters childish or something is incorrect imo.

You're putting words in my mouth. Harry Potter isn't necessarily childish. It's just not literature. Its fun, you can sit back and enjoy it and the journey but you don't need to step inside it and analyze anything.

Shadowheart, Gale, Lae'zel and Wyll are more like regular people. They have problems. They are at times unlikable. They have their own motivations you have to deal with. You can't always trust what they say. Gale has a stupid mustache, and you have to try and watch him say things with his dumb face and not punch him.

Astarion is the most "go with the flow" option. As long as SOMETHING is dying he doesn't care much.

Compared to Minsc who is a simpleton - "You point, I punch!"
Posted By: virion Re: How does BG3 compare to BG2? - 25/06/21 01:14 AM
Originally Posted by Blackheifer
Originally Posted by mr_planescapist
<The characters in this story feel too much like modern day, Covid-19 era, rude and crude earthlings.>

Yea that basically sums it up for me. Doesn't feel like your in a gritty Faerun high fanstasy setting; like all the characters are modern drama cosplayers from some <westworld> town in the USA.

yeah but everything evolves and maybe when you are a child the characters in BG1-2 seem amazing and deep but then you grow up and you realize how shallow and simplistic they really are.

Because that's the key to universal likability in terms of writing. You make the characters as shallow as possible, or have them follow archetypes and then allow the reader to superimpose themselves onto the character. Its why Twilight was so popular, the main character was devoid of any actual personality or opinions.

And that's fine, its less of a risk for sure. What Larian is doing with these characters is the greater risk, and to some extent I think its a mistake. I don't think people are ready for this level of realism. Its why most people don't like Art. Art is work. Harry Potter is easy, Infinite Jest isn't.

Originally Posted by Blackheifer
Shadowheart, Gale, Lae'zel and Wyll are more like regular people. They have problems. They are at times unlikable. They have their own motivations you have to deal with. You can't always trust what they say. Gale has a stupid mustache, and you have to try and watch him say things with his dumb face and not punch him.

Astarion is the most "go with the flow" option. As long as SOMETHING is dying he doesn't care much.

Compared to Minsc who is a simpleton - "You point, I punch!"

Eeeeh, Idk man. To some extent you're right. Characters in BG2 were a bit simpler (Not all of them. Minsc being the most popular among them kinda proves your point though.) But they did follow you mostly cause you were the child of bhaal. They had a loose reason to be with you.


>>> Here having your companions with you cause you're all screwed and have no other choice would be 100% more interesting for me me but the absolute lack of "general" backstory for the PC is just so strange. And that's my main point.<<

I had the same problem in DOS2. I want to create my own character and all but If I do it he will have 0 anchor in the world apart from being one of those who got kidnapped or one of those with the tadpole.



I don't think it's anywhere close about "realism" or characters being " too deep". For now the only motivation of shadowheart seems to be pretending she's very selfish and very "evil" by harassing you of nowhere for no reason + finding a cure to the tadpole. And eventually she sleeps with you if you gather enought " Shadowheart approves" options. Like come on. Shaowheart is really the #1 offender in this category. It's just insane.

They don't care that much about other party members, they seem to focus 100% on the PC altough the PC is literally the only guy who doesn't give any reason to think he's a threat. He doesn't even talk about his past that they could dislike because he doesn't have one if you don't play one of the origin characters. Shadowheart talks about leaving if you don't change your ways of doing once and we all know it won't happen since apparently after ACT I our party composition is set in stone.

How is that realistic? Compare this to a plane crash on an tropical Island( that's literally what happens to us). Would the guys around you behave like 15 years old? Even if they were from Yakuza? Come on).

Small description of how this compares to BG2:

You took Minsc as an example but take Viconia or Edwin. Viconia felt she owed you something(you saved her life), was attracted to your power ( cause drow + evil ) but on the same time wouldn't stand your presence if you were way too nice to everyone. She was a drow trying to make her life on the surface despite the odds. She was " evil" deep down but that's not the only motivation she had. Not speaking about actually having an opinion about most of the things happenning around her based on your decisions. Opinion she would share straight away and eventually leave if she had enought of your "let's save the world" bs.

Edwin had more straightforward reasons, he hoped to become more powerful in your presence( and was right) but had his small mental issues to make him a bit more interesting and could eventually start a fight with Minsc over Dynaheir if you had Aerie in your party(Minsc takes Aerie as a substitute for Dynaheir). He also seen you help the thief guild he was working with so he had reasonable reasons to trust you. Not speaking about Edwin's quest....like his identity issues went a bit further than expected didn't they.

Yoshimo was a interesting too with his very calm and analytic approach, his issues he wouldn't talk about until he eventually shows you his backstory in the least expected moment. He was probably the closest to a shallow character in terms of backstory but had quite intereseting opinions after me.

Khorgan was the closest to shadowheart. He was just a son of a bitch and you had to literally pay him to rejoin you if you did something he disliked like giving money to a beggar in the street. He was literally the opposite of Minsc an 100% over the top for 0 reason apart from being like this cause " he's evil". Still to some extent he had something to earn by your presence and as long as you didn't piss him off too much it made sense for him to be with you.
Don't remember his quest or his interactions. Played with him only once in my playthroughs.


TLDR:
Now.... How are interactions in BG3 more realistic and deep compared to BG2? I don't think they are. Mostly due to the current structure of the game( companions can't leave us and look for the cure themselves cause where would they go?), the PC character not having at least one distinctive characteristic compared to other characters and them ignoring 100% of the world around them apart from the PC.

Those 3 things are just annoying to me with the 3rd +2nd point being the main offenders.

At no point is it about "writing choices" or anything like this. I can like or dislike a character, a story the devs try to tell and still enjoy it. I can hate Astarion at 100% and disagree with everything he has to say and still keep him in the party cause at least he's the guy who reacts the most to what's happening around.

The same way I hated Edwin and still had him in the party and kept him with me just to make in-party interactions more interesting.
Posted By: Sozz Re: How does BG3 compare to BG2? - 25/06/21 01:53 AM
My problem with Harry Potter is how it started out as an interesting story with children main characters, then devolved into more standard YA fair.

I think this point about motivation is the main difference between BG 1 2 and 3, the Baldur's Gate 1 and 2 you picked up companions mostly because they were looking for muscle to help with a trivial quest, their motivations were straightforward usually quickly satisfied and lead to you gaining an ally for your own quest. The most memorable companions are the ones who had motivations that developed during your quest, mostly the romanceable ones who are given that much more narrative real estate.

In Baldur's Gate 3, we've been given a cast of characters with multiple motivations, and who clearly aren't willing to reveal everything upon joining the quest, people are acting like they have a good handle on what our companions' backstories and motivations are, but I personally don't know how much we've really been given, even from the glimmerings of intimacy we've gotten in the EA, though maybe there's that much datamined informing these criticisms.
Posted By: timebean Re: How does BG3 compare to BG2? - 25/06/21 03:32 AM
It’s funny folks bring up Harry Potter, as I have compared it to BG3 in convos with pals. I liked the plot of Harry Potter, but despised the characters for the most part because it was basically a bunch of aresewipe jocks with barely an ounce of empathy between them who are the heroes in the end.

Similarly, I get a bit of cringe from my team in BG3 because they also lack empathy. I feel like I am walking around with a bunch of narcissists, which totally voids any emotional investment I may have in them. Hope that improves as we get to know them more later in game. Fingers crossed.
Posted By: Alyssa_Fox Re: How does BG3 compare to BG2? - 26/06/21 04:50 PM
Originally Posted by timebean
Similarly, I get a bit of cringe from my team in BG3 because they also lack empathy. I feel like I am walking around with a bunch of narcissists, which totally voids any emotional investment I may have in them. Hope that improves as we get to know them more later in game. Fingers crossed.

They do have empathy (well, except Astarion, that guy is classic sociopath), they are just not really good people. Every companion (except Lae'Zel, she is the only honest and straighforward companion in EA) in BG3 is trying to manipulate you and lies to you, but they do it in a way normal people usually do it in the real life. They have huge skeletons in their closets, so it makes sense for them to open up and confess their deceptions and manipulations only when they get to know you more and learn to trust you.
Posted By: Boblawblah Re: How does BG3 compare to BG2? - 26/06/21 05:30 PM
You must know some pretty shitty people lol. Most people in real life default to telling the truth and we assume most people we interact with on a daily basis are telling the truth as well unless we have reason to believe otherwise. Unless we're saying that everyone of these "normal" people have deep dark secrets that have caused them to mistrust literally everyone they meet, which would be about as far from "normal" as you can get.
Posted By: Sozz Re: How does BG3 compare to BG2? - 26/06/21 07:08 PM
Most people don't have much to lie about, they also don't usually make appearances in genre fiction. I agree with Alyssa that having a bunch of these neutral to evil companions in an opportunity for some interesting stories to be told. I think the problem people are having is that it can be little much all at once.
Posted By: Alyssa_Fox Re: How does BG3 compare to BG2? - 26/06/21 07:19 PM
Originally Posted by Boblawblah
You must know some pretty shitty people lol. Most people in real life default to telling the truth and we assume most people we interact with on a daily basis are telling the truth as well unless we have reason to believe otherwise. Unless we're saying that everyone of these "normal" people have deep dark secrets that have caused them to mistrust literally everyone they meet, which would be about as far from "normal" as you can get.

https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2002-06/uoma-urf061002.php

People lie a lot to make others feel good, to make themselves feel better, to hide something embarassing that happened to them and these little lies don't make them shitty people. Imagine an old woman who is dying from cancer, but hides her ilness from other people because she is so nice, she doesn't want them to worry. Or a recovering alcoholic who is deeply embarassed by his addiction, he is fighting it, trying to suppress his urges, but in the same time he is making fake excuses not to go to a bar with you without telling about his weakness. Or maybe you are approached by a hobo who reeks of booze, he asks you for some money, telling you they are starving, but you lie that you don't have any money, because you believe that he will buy whiskey instead of bread, after all, you believe you have a good reason not to trust him. People generally tell truth only when it's safe and doesn't endanger them, like most gay people pretend to be heterosexual in countries that punish homosexuality or if there is a strong social stygma against gay people.

Now let's take a look at BG3 companions and why they lie. Gale is one of the companions who asks to travel with you first, he believes that in a group he has a better chance to survive and find healing. It makes total sense for him to omit the fact that he is literally a walking bomb, until he can trust you enough with that kind of information. He is sure that he can keep it under control, he just needs to find some magical artifacts, to keep his bomb dormant, no big deal for him, after all, he's been doing that for some time already, and telling every stranger he plans on spending some time with about it the moment he meet them isn't that smart.

Wyll is reluctant to admit his pact with Mizora, because he is embarassed and feels 'fake' as a true Hero he wants people to think he is. His huge ego is but a mask for his lack of real self confidence, caused by the conflict with his father. He wanted to prove himself, but instead he sold his soul to a devil. He too needs time so he can learn to trust you with his background, because it's extremely uncomfortable to appear vulnerable before people you can't trust.

They lie to you like every normal person would lie about things they consider private, embarassing or sensitive considering that they only lie to you until they begin bonding with you and trusting you after some time.

Originally Posted by Sozz
Most people don't have much to lie about, they also don't usually make appearances in genre fiction. I agree with Alyssa that having a bunch of these neutral to evil companions in an opportunity for some interesting stories to be told. I think the problem people are having is that it can be little much all at once.

True, right now I believe that Lae'Zel and Minsc will be the only straightforward and honest companions you will get. Maybe Karlach too.
Posted By: Vallis Re: How does BG3 compare to BG2? - 01/07/21 06:20 AM
Originally Posted by Abits
About the comparison to Dao - bg3 would be lucky to be like Dao.

Eh i've never been a huge fan of Dragon Age series, I felt it's lore has always been one of the weakest of the fantasy games especially compared to this one's or even TES. They rarely go deeper beyond the devines this, the chantry that, mages vs templars, which frankly aren't even that interesting of concepts themselves to warrant such focus, especially when both factions weren't that deep, and this didn't change in the sequels, the lore still didn't expand much. TES has pages upon pages of lore for every race, every specific daedra, their histories, and DA always seem to be casual fantasy only lightly ever touching on it's lore, very forgettable and faint.

Ultimately as far as Bioware goes, Mass Effect's lore and world building was handled far better than that of Dragon Age's.
Posted By: Uncle Lester Re: How does BG3 compare to BG2? - 01/07/21 08:41 AM
Originally Posted by Vallis
Originally Posted by Abits
About the comparison to Dao - bg3 would be lucky to be like Dao.

Eh i've never been a huge fan of Dragon Age series, I felt it's lore has always been one of the weakest of the fantasy games especially compared to this one's or even TES. They rarely go deeper beyond the devines this, the chantry that, mages vs templars, which frankly aren't even that interesting of concepts themselves to warrant such focus, especially when both factions weren't that deep, and this didn't change in the sequels, the lore still didn't expand much. TES has pages upon pages of lore for every race, every specific daedra, their histories, and DA always seem to be casual fantasy only lightly ever touching on it's lore, very forgettable and faint.

Ultimately as far as Bioware goes, Mass Effect's lore and world building was handled far better than that of Dragon Age's.

I would argue DA:O's lore was actually fine, maybe not "top 3 fantasy game lore", but solid, with some potential and nice ideas. It was the first game in the series that laid the foundations. The later games just didn't build on it, instead reusing the same themes, plots and lore hooks or, worse, changing the lore and tone of the series. I groaned when I saw that DA:I is AGAIN about mages vs templars. Come on. DAII had it, but at least it was relatively short and focused. (I liked red lyrium though.)

One thing I did NOT like about the "foundations" was what TV Tropes calls "Fantasy Counterpart Culture". Totally-not-England Ferelden, totally-not-France Orlais, totally-not-Italy Antiva... Come on. Annoys me every time I see this in (fantasy) fiction. Make your own cultures. Or at least mix like three real-world ones to make something that appears original, not rip off one wholesale.

Agreed with Abits though, if BG3 would be like DA:O, I'd be happy. It was actually a decent spiritual successor to BG. Not stellar, but decent, and a very good game on its own.
Posted By: CJMPinger Re: How does BG3 compare to BG2? - 01/07/21 08:55 AM
I actually like when its is based off of a real culture with some heavy differences, gives it some grounding to work off of, and also allows a tiny bit of shorthand. Like how you don't really have to justify to a viewer that Orlais has this aristocratic society that cares so much about optics and the game, but of course it does. But this then allows the series to go into the more specific stuff like the role of assassins in society, past conflicts with Elves,government instability because of this system, and their history with grey Wardens and Blights.
Posted By: Try2Handing Re: How does BG3 compare to BG2? - 01/07/21 09:21 AM
Originally Posted by Uncle Lester
I would argue DA:O's lore was actually fine, maybe not "top 3 fantasy game lore", but solid, with some potential and nice ideas. It was the first game in the series that laid the foundations. The later games just didn't build on it, instead reusing the same themes, plots and lore hooks or, worse, changing the lore and tone of the series. I groaned when I saw that DA:I is AGAIN about mages vs templars. Come on. DAII had it, but at least it was relatively short and focused. (I liked red lyrium though.)
The thing about DA lore is that it is so... narrow. What I mean is, it's always either "templar / mages", "mages are dangerous", "chantry", "maker this maker that". That's really about it. No one ever talks about anything else. You can't talk to anyone for more than 2 lines without them mentioning either "mage", "maker", "Andraste". It gets boring talking to anyone pretty soon, tbh.
Posted By: Abits Re: How does BG3 compare to BG2? - 01/07/21 10:37 AM
My statement has nothing to do with lore. The lore of Dao, while fine, is not what makes it a great game.
Posted By: Icelyn Re: How does BG3 compare to BG2? - 01/07/21 11:56 AM
Originally Posted by Abits
My statement has nothing to do with lore. The lore of Dao, while fine, is not what makes it a great game.
What features from DAO would you like to see in BG3?
Posted By: Sozz Re: How does BG3 compare to BG2? - 01/07/21 02:54 PM
My problem with DA:I was that it wasn't about mages v templars. It shunts that conflict, setup in the Dragon Age II, in the very opening, relegating the central conflict of the series in favor of some ancient bad guy with vague insights into the tainted fade/dark spawn.
As far as making an interesting medieval fantasy world, I think DA:O and DA:II did pretty well, but Inquisition did little more than tread water, except for Orlais which was a complete dud to me. I still have high hopes for the next game, a game set in Tevinter has to potential of being Dragon Age's Morrowind, the best TES game in terms of lore for me (not having played the older ones)

Lore might not have been Abits aim but I certainly would like to see more of it in BG:3, you don't need to look at BladeDancers threads to know a lot's been going on in FR, but it's been a long time since I last visited, I'd appreciate a lore dump so that I can better play, say, a 300 year old vampire spawn.
Posted By: Blackheifer Re: How does BG3 compare to BG2? - 01/07/21 02:58 PM
Originally Posted by Sozz
My problem with DA:I was that it wasn't about mages v templars. It shunts that conflict, setup in the Dragon Age II, in the very opening, relegating the central conflict of the game in favor of some ancient bad guy with vague insights into the tainted fade/dark spawn.
As far as making a interesting medieval fantasy world, I think DA:O and DA:II did pretty well, but Inquisition did little more than tread water, except for Orlais which was a complete dud to me. I still have high hopes for the next game,


I wouldn't. Bioware has not made a good game since EA bought them. ME3, Andromeda, DA:I - all trash/mediocre.

In fact nobody makes good games after EA buys them as a rule. I have not forgotten what happened to Origin Systems.
Posted By: Vallis Re: How does BG3 compare to BG2? - 01/07/21 06:31 PM
Originally Posted by Blackheifer
Originally Posted by Sozz
My problem with DA:I was that it wasn't about mages v templars. It shunts that conflict, setup in the Dragon Age II, in the very opening, relegating the central conflict of the game in favor of some ancient bad guy with vague insights into the tainted fade/dark spawn.
As far as making a interesting medieval fantasy world, I think DA:O and DA:II did pretty well, but Inquisition did little more than tread water, except for Orlais which was a complete dud to me. I still have high hopes for the next game,


I wouldn't. Bioware has not made a good game since EA bought them. ME3, Andromeda, DA:I - all trash/mediocre.

In fact nobody makes good games after EA buys them as a rule. I have not forgotten what happened to Origin Systems.

I'm a big enough hater of EA as anyone, but people really need to stop blaming the publisher and absolving Bioware of all fault, afterall EA publishes an assortment of different games by different devs and none of them are having even remotely the same issues as Bioware, they are the ones who make these design choices. Infact EA gave Bioware a boatload of money to support Swtor, and Bioware even messed that up to the point EA would no longer dump that much money into the game again.

It's less about EA, and more about how Bioware's decisions has chased nearly all of their veteran devs away which has effected their games quality
Posted By: Tuco Re: How does BG3 compare to BG2? - 01/07/21 06:44 PM
Originally Posted by Icelyn
What features from DAO would you like to see in BG3?
The lack of toilet chains is a good start.

Even if I wouldn't exactly pick DAO as my paragon for the ideal control scheme, either.
Posted By: Blackheifer Re: How does BG3 compare to BG2? - 01/07/21 06:48 PM
Originally Posted by Vallis
I'm a big enough hater of EA as anyone, but people really need to stop blaming the publisher and absolving Bioware of all fault, afterall EA publishes an assortment of different games by different devs and none of them are having even remotely the same issues as Bioware, they are the ones who make these design choices. Infact EA gave Bioware a boatload of money to support Swtor, and Bioware even messed that up to the point EA would no longer dump that much money into the game again.

It's less about EA, and more about how Bioware's decisions has chased nearly all of their veteran devs away which has effected their games quality


It still stands though. It takes a team of talented people to make truly great games. Bioware doesn't have that anymore. In fact they lost even more Devs after they decided to do ME4.

I mean, I really wish they could turn it around. I have loved Bioware since they started with the original Baldur's Gate and its Infinity Engine.

We'll see though, not going to pre-buy anything this time.
Posted By: Uncle Lester Re: How does BG3 compare to BG2? - 01/07/21 09:15 PM
Originally Posted by Try2Handing
Originally Posted by Uncle Lester
I would argue DA:O's lore was actually fine, maybe not "top 3 fantasy game lore", but solid, with some potential and nice ideas. It was the first game in the series that laid the foundations. The later games just didn't build on it, instead reusing the same themes, plots and lore hooks or, worse, changing the lore and tone of the series. I groaned when I saw that DA:I is AGAIN about mages vs templars. Come on. DAII had it, but at least it was relatively short and focused. (I liked red lyrium though.)
The thing about DA lore is that it is so... narrow. What I mean is, it's always either "templar / mages", "mages are dangerous", "chantry", "maker this maker that". That's really about it. No one ever talks about anything else. You can't talk to anyone for more than 2 lines without them mentioning either "mage", "maker", "Andraste". It gets boring talking to anyone pretty soon, tbh.

I know what you mean, but I stand by my point that it's the problem of DAII and DA:I. In DA:O, you had, besides mages and Chantry (admittedly an overused dull rip-off of the Catholic church), different societies with all their problems, different faiths, little lore pieces, mentions of distant lands... Orzammar, on the brink of collapse, with both isolationism and cosmopolitanism being potential reasons for its end. Dwarven Paragons, which are an interesting take on ancestor worship (kind of). Elves having basically three societies (city, mage, Dalish) and all that follows. Dragon cults. Some nice teases and world mysteries (which mostly lead nowhere in the sequels, but that's besides the point). All the little stories of places you visit. Finally, Darkspawn, which are basically a bunch of cliches thrown together and made into something slightly different and interesting. It was a world I actually wanted to explore and get to know better. Templars vs mages was, iirc, mostly present just in the mage tower questline and only overstayed its welcome in the sequels.
Posted By: alice_ashpool Re: How does BG3 compare to BG2? - 06/07/21 10:33 PM
My opinion is that Baldur's Gate 3, at least the EA, is not as broken as Baldur's Gate 1 and 2 and has far fewer exploits.
Posted By: Etruscan Re: How does BG3 compare to BG2? - 07/07/21 08:26 AM
Originally Posted by alice_ashpool
My opinion is that Baldur's Gate 3, at least the EA, is not as broken as Baldur's Gate 1 and 2 and has far fewer exploits.

Can you elaborate further? Be interesting to hear your reasoning.

My own opinion couldn’t be any further from your own but it’s always good to have a conversation with opposing views.
Posted By: Maximuuus Re: How does BG3 compare to BG2? - 07/07/21 09:05 AM
Originally Posted by Etruscan
Originally Posted by alice_ashpool
My opinion is that Baldur's Gate 3, at least the EA, is not as broken as Baldur's Gate 1 and 2 and has far fewer exploits.

Can you elaborate further? Be interesting to hear your reasoning.

My own opinion couldn’t be any further from your own but it’s always good to have a conversation with opposing views.

There are less exploit in BG3 because everything is intended, so it's not exploits... it's just broken mechanics.
Alice is right !
Posted By: Try2Handing Re: How does BG3 compare to BG2? - 07/07/21 10:00 AM
It's true, it's reasonable to say there are a lot of exploits and broken stuff in the original games. Especially when taking into consideration what each person considers to be "exploit" and "broken". Simple examples: Edwin, kensai mage, kensai thief, assassin being able to do 500+ backstab damage repeatedly during times stop, triple Bolt of Glory spell triggers that would kill Demogorgon in a couple rounds, completely invulnerable to absolutely everything blade that can make 9 attacks per round each dealing 30+ damage (which also cannot miss if during time stop), etc. In fact, just the fact that thief can "quaff potion of invisibility" and backstab every round is broken enough for many.

This is true whether it's vanilla BG or BG modded with Spell Revisions, Item Revisions, SCS, improved enemies, etc. Vanilla BG just have more "low-level" exploits that are mostly just oversights and bugs, which are fixed by fixpacks and other mods.

The cool thing about these "exploits" in the BG games is that, some (or most) are rather advanced and can be quite obscure, you can only find out by playing the game a lot, understanding how things work (or by reading guides) and being clever about it. They make you feel like you're smart and that you've just discovered something really cool. These exploits can be absurd, but in a good kinda way; you're being smart with the mechanics. It's also not quite to the point that you can completely disregard all other factors in combat.

Another thing, is that enemies can do many of these things to you too, but the devs were just forgiving about it when they made the game. There's also a reason why it doesn't feel quite so frustrating when enemies use these mechanics against you, and that's because there are countermeasures to everything. Even the most broken/absurd thing can be completely negated by something else. You just need to understand what counters what, and be smart. Here's where mods like improved enemies and SCS come it, I suppose.

And then there's the kind of exploits that blatantly sit there begging you to use, and trivialize encounters while allowing you to disregard most if not all other mechanics. You don't feel "wow I'm smart" when using these. You don't feel good when winning encounters using these.

My point is, even among broken and absurd mechanics, there's still the good kind and the bad kind.
Posted By: Etruscan Re: How does BG3 compare to BG2? - 07/07/21 12:06 PM
Fair enough, seems I misunderstood Alice’s post then, if that’s the case.
Posted By: Blackheifer Re: How does BG3 compare to BG2? - 07/07/21 01:29 PM
Originally Posted by Try2Handing
And then there's the kind of exploits that blatantly sit there begging you to use, and trivialize encounters while allowing you to disregard most if not all other mechanics. You don't feel "wow I'm smart" when using these. You don't feel good when winning encounters using these.

You should tell that to the people who roll up to an MP game and try to impress us all by using these exploits. They think they are super smart. They are legit shocked when no-one is impressed and we are like "yeah we don't do that because its lame".
Posted By: Topgoon Re: How does BG3 compare to BG2? - 07/07/21 06:31 PM
While there were tons of in-game-mechanic exploits for BG2 that required a decent understanding of game knowledge - i.e. Thiefs using Mislead to backstab on every hit, Mages using Project Image Combos to caste an infinite amount of spells, there were some legit, in your face game mechanic exploits too in BG1/BG2.

I will say in the original games the exploit felt more like bugs than "deliberately design to be exploited" like many of Larian's. But to Alice's point, it was pretty abusable. Having replayed BG2 far more recently, most of my examples will be based on that game. Some of the big ones that stand out in my mind:


The Original Dialogue Bug
BG2 actually has a very similar "kill them while in dialogue bug" as BG3. Essentially, for any non-aggressive enemies, or ones you can catch fast enough prior to them turning hostile, you can pause, click on them to engage in dialogue, and then switch to attacking them. The NPC will stay neutral and wait for the dialogue to initiate while your entire party hammers at them till death. Sometimes this has the potential to wear off, but you can refresh stall duration by repeating the pause, click to talk and switch to attack again. This works in a good bunch of fights, with the most notable victims being the Dragons in SoA


The Original Barrels (Thief Traps)
While the original games didn't have explosive barrels, they did have thieves trap (and spell traps, though those are less terrible) - which also lets you bypass/cheese any fight, arguably with less effort (since you at least need to find and accumulate barrels. Traps just come back with rest, which is unlimited). While it is a least a class mechanic, it's not that much better since thieves are basically a requirement in BG2. Everything is vulnerable to traps. For a game where dice determines everything, traps always hits, and always damages (no saves, AC doesn't matter).

NPCs have no counters to these, just like Barrels in BG3 - for any non-immediately hostile enemies, you can literally set these traps right beside them while they'd just stand and watch as you plan their demise. In the cases you can't (i.e. dialogue auto-initiates, then fight), you can still set them up pretty easily short distant away and draw them in. Traps also don't go away - you can rest until you've set the max number of traps.

Points to BG2 for limiting the max number of traps to 7 on a map (although that basically kills anything), but deductions for doubling down on this in TOB by introducing the Spike Traps (basically traps on roids). At least in DOS2, non-Death Fog barrels become much less useful in the late game due to numbers bloat. In TOB you can one shot almost any boss/anything with Spike Traps (first time I fought Demogorgon I accidentally one-shot him with Spike Traps. I say "almost" because some bosses have multi-phases or transformations that make it less of a one-shot).


The Original Free Disengage
There is no such thing as opportunity attacks in BG2 - so you can freely disengage from melee any time you want. Even when chasing, enemies will almost never land a hit due to the clunky and slow attack animations. This exploit is extremely abuseable because the AI never does it to you.

In the most basic case exploit of this, you can use this to withdraw any hurt or losing combatants, and then reform via body blocking with your healthy tanks (who can also disengage freely) and force them to switch targets - making your HP more effective than the enemies, since you are essentially focus firing while they are not.

In the worst case of exploitation, you can essentially win many fights with melee enemies where you're outgunned by playing Starcraft with Pause. Have one party member draw aggro and run them in circles while the rest is "micro-ed" aways, shooting and casting as needed. Can be a bit of work, but skill requirement is limited thanks to pause.

Some bosses / high-level enemies do have very fast animations and can somewhat avoid the chase, but not fully (with some work you'll still derp them out). Obviously enemy casters / archers aren't as affected by this.


The Run Mid Fight and Rest Exploit
Can't get through a Lich's layers of buffs? You're out of spell? No need to stand and fight. Just run out of range (most easily via an area transition) and rest (best when you can run to an inn keeper). This dispels all the enemy buffs via duration, and you can just come back and kill them (most caster's contingencies only fire off once). If they have a second contingency (i.e. at 50% hp), just rinse and repeat. Alternatively, you can just do this because you're low on spells/hp. The primary victim of this is the poor Lich guarding Daystar in the City Gate district. However, this works on all the dragons (run out of their lair), Kangaxx (especially the 1st form which relies on buffs), and various others.


Clone Spells Cloned Expendable Items
This one sits more within the "in-game-mechanic" cheese, but it's too broken and obvious not to mention. Essentially, whenever you use a clone spell (Project Image, Simulacrum), the clone duplicates the quick slot items you have too. This means insanely powerful but expendable items, like the Protection from Magic scroll (2x only in BG2 - auto win against casters), can be used infinitely via this cheese. Even if you don't use it for something like the Protection from Magic scroll, just using this with something like a Rod of Resurrection (if casted on an alive party member, it's a instant, ranged full heal), is insanely powerful since now it doesn't consume any charges.

This trick was extra interesting in the original SoA, because you were level-capped to only be able to cast level 8 spells, but get access to level 9 scrolls (so you can cast a few via scrolls per game). With this trick, your casters could basically cast an unlimited amount of level 9 spells. It's less of an exploit in ToB since you'll get your own level 9 spells, but ToB also introduces Wish, which you can use to do this exploit an unlimited amount of times without rest.

Although the trick technically needs your mages to be able to cast level 7 spells, this isn't really the case thanks to Vhailor's Helm, which is available to you as soon as you get out of Irenicus's dungeon (prologue) and get enough money. While not usable by every class, you can still do the Rod of Resurrection or Protection from Magic scroll with it since those items can be used universally.
Posted By: Sozz Re: How does BG3 compare to BG2? - 07/07/21 07:25 PM
I was waiting for someone to bring up the fake talk exploit from BG:2 in the other thread
Posted By: virion Re: How does BG3 compare to BG2? - 07/07/21 10:57 PM
You can also add to this list off-screening enemies with fog rods. Since you can stack fog you can literally make an entire screen AOE. Even beholders have issues to resist it apparently. Never used it since balduran shieldd reflects beholder's rays and they just suicide on you but there's that.
It's worth mentioning since it's the closest to actual exploits together with the sloppy BG2 AI + being able to disengage mid fight and basically spam all buffs in the game each fight in most areas.



When it comes to mages being 100% broken and OP they do come with game knowledge though so I would call it way more legit.

I'm really curious how BG3 will work on higher levels though. For now we are still on low levels encounters so rather than BG2 the direct comparison would be BG1 actually. And when comparing low levels adventures of BG1 to BG3 I think there's no comparison and BG3 just straight up did it 100% better. From all aspects apart from party banters.
Goblins in BG3 are quite straightforward especially with the meatgrinder in the goblin's camp where they clearly just CAN'T win regardless of their numbers but that's what goblins always were in BG. Not speaking about the straight up retarded BOW meta of BG1.

Due to turn base vs RTWP it makes it a bit akward to spend so much time on trash -tier level encounters. Based on ALL of what was said above I would just say combat speed shoudld be improved in BG3 ( how exactly was alreaddy mentioned indefinite amount of times) and this will just make BG3 outclass older BG combats in all aspects.


Last comment regarding exploits: I think in BG3 they just made those exploits stand out way more since there is less of them ^^
Posted By: The_BlauerDragon Re: How does BG3 compare to BG2? - 08/07/21 03:33 AM
I've thought a lot about this. It is unfair to compare the two. They're entirely different games and only have a shared name to connect them. They're as foreign to each other as Fallout 2 (my favorite game of all time) and Fallout 3 & 4. Only the name and a few basic concepts are there to unite them. Take that thin connection out of the equation and you'll see how vastly different they are. BG 2 was made for a different player in a different time. It was intended for those who wished to suffer the long path, think through the puzzles and traps, and savor the sweet sensation of a hard fought victory. In essence, it was made for role players. BG3 is made for an era where the majority of players demand instant satisfaction, questlines that don't require thought, cheap and extremely trendy "romances", and insanely beautiful graphics. In that respect, it is perfectly fitting that it uses 5th edition rules, as they were dumbed down for the same audience (and for the same reasons). It's a fine game. It is fun to play. The graphics are very good. It is not, however, anything even remotely similar to Baldur's Gate 1 and 2. Enjoy it for what it is. If you still find yourself seeking an experience more in line with BG2, then perhaps try a different game like Pathfinder: Kingmaker.

I enjoy both, but I've been a part of this EA because I am excited to see what this game will eventually become. That being said, I have long since abandoned any hopes that it will ever be a true successor to Baldur's Gate 2.
Posted By: VincentNZ Re: How does BG3 compare to BG2? - 08/07/21 05:56 AM
Originally Posted by The_BlauerDragon
I've thought a lot about this. It is unfair to compare the two. They're entirely different games and only have a shared name to connect them. They're as foreign to each other as Fallout 2 (my favorite game of all time) and Fallout 3 & 4. Only the name and a few basic concepts are there to unite them. Take that thin connection out of the equation and you'll see how vastly different they are. BG 2 was made for a different player in a different time. It was intended for those who wished to suffer the long path, think through the puzzles and traps, and savor the sweet sensation of a hard fought victory. In essence, it was made for role players. BG3 is made for an era where the majority of players demand instant satisfaction, questlines that don't require thought, cheap and extremely trendy "romances", and insanely beautiful graphics. In that respect, it is perfectly fitting that it uses 5th edition rules, as they were dumbed down for the same audience (and for the same reasons). It's a fine game. It is fun to play. The graphics are very good. It is not, however, anything even remotely similar to Baldur's Gate 1 and 2. Enjoy it for what it is. If you still find yourself seeking an experience more in line with BG2, then perhaps try a different game like Pathfinder: Kingmaker.

I enjoy both, but I've been a part of this EA because I am excited to see what this game will eventually become. That being said, I have long since abandoned any hopes that it will ever be a true successor to Baldur's Gate 2.

I can not say I share the analogy. I played all Fallouts when they came out, and in 2008 I felt right at home. Sure, it changed from 2D to 3D, from 3rd to 1st person and combat was real-time instead of turn-based. Yet I immediately saw that this was a Fallout game, just from the look.
And then everywhere you saw references, characters and general lore connecting you to the world you played ten years before. Even character building was still very close or at least familiar to me. Plus Bethesda managed to add their own spin on things with environmental storytelling that felt like it was the same in the original games.

Now I played BG2 ten times or so know the location of every item special to me, can remember a lot of characters and the events unfolding, even some rather obscure things. Gameplay-wise I was never much invested in BG2, I mostly just fireballed and dual-wielded my way through it. However jumping into BG3 I never felt at home. I do see things that both games have in common, maybe even some parts of world-building, but this would also apply to Infinity and even more to PoE. I have not seen a character, item, location or even atmosphere that puts me back to Atkathla, or Irenicus' Dungeon, for example. I've seen a reference to space hamsters.
Gameplay mechanics also do not feel very similar or even inspired by BG, which does not mean one does it better, but I recently got Divinity 2 and here I immediately recognized the look, the combat and the gameplay mechanics.
Posted By: Abits Re: How does BG3 compare to BG2? - 08/07/21 09:02 AM
I feel like the relation between Fallout 1-2 and 3 is very similar to the relation between BG1-2 and 3, at least from the development story view. I remember Fallout fans being very worried and Bethesda reassuring that the crew working on the game is full of Fallout fans and stuff. I think Baldur's Gate 3 will be very similar to Fallout 3 - Some very clear similarities to the source material, but a lot of the essence missing. I think it will be similar by the way it will be received as well - I think the general audience will like it while hardcore fans mostly won't, or at least not as much.
Posted By: alice_ashpool Re: How does BG3 compare to BG2? - 08/07/21 09:10 AM
My favorite exploit in the originals was that you could arcane cast in full armor using hotkeys or potion-swapping.
Posted By: mr_planescapist Re: How does BG3 compare to BG2? - 08/07/21 01:53 PM
Lets try to me relative here. For every BG2 exploit you've got about a dozen BG3 ones, some of which are completely broken mechanics lol.
Posted By: virion Re: How does BG3 compare to BG2? - 08/07/21 03:16 PM
Originally Posted by mr_planescapist
Lets try to me relative here. For every BG2 exploit you've got about a dozen BG3 ones, some of which are completely broken mechanics lol.

It's easily the opposite. C# is just faster so it's easier to prevent certain exploits/bugs.
Posted By: IrenicusBG3 Re: How does BG3 compare to BG2? - 08/07/21 05:50 PM
Originally Posted by VincentNZ
I can not say I share the analogy. I played all Fallouts when they came out, and in 2008 I felt right at home. Sure, it changed from 2D to 3D, from 3rd to 1st person and combat was real-time instead of turn-based. Yet I immediately saw that this was a Fallout game, just from the look.
And then everywhere you saw references, characters and general lore connecting you to the world you played ten years before. Even character building was still very close or at least familiar to me. Plus Bethesda managed to add their own spin on things with environmental storytelling that felt like it was the same in the original games.

Now I played BG2 ten times or so know the location of every item special to me, can remember a lot of characters and the events unfolding, even some rather obscure things. Gameplay-wise I was never much invested in BG2, I mostly just fireballed and dual-wielded my way through it. However jumping into BG3 I never felt at home. I do see things that both games have in common, maybe even some parts of world-building, but this would also apply to Infinity and even more to PoE. I have not seen a character, item, location or even atmosphere that puts me back to Atkathla, or Irenicus' Dungeon, for example. I've seen a reference to space hamsters.
Gameplay mechanics also do not feel very similar or even inspired by BG, which does not mean one does it better, but I recently got Divinity 2 and here I immediately recognized the look, the combat and the gameplay mechanics.

I completely agree. I think the Art design matters a lot. Bethesda somehow preserved the Art of original Fallouts (the font letters, font color, the UI is heavily inspired in the originals) where BG3 has no resemblance to the originals.

I felt the Fallouts were closer to the originals than BG3.
Posted By: Sozz Re: How does BG3 compare to BG2? - 08/07/21 09:34 PM
Is art design Larian or WotC's doing? Have you seen recent representations of the Forgotten Realms, and BG for that matter?

There might be another issue, BG:I had the more generic setting, whereas Athkatla was a more interesting and active part of the game in BG:II, so people coming from BG:II to BG:III which is set in Baldur's Gate might find it wanting

Feel free to tell me how I'm wrong about BG:I, I love it, but the last time I replayed it was to see how BGtutu worked.
Posted By: Navystylz Re: How does BG3 compare to BG2? - 09/07/21 12:35 AM
Originally Posted by virion
You can also add to this list off-screening enemies with fog rods. Since you can stack fog you can literally make an entire screen AOE. Even beholders have issues to resist it apparently. Never used it since balduran shieldd reflects beholder's rays and they just suicide on you but there's that.
It's worth mentioning since it's the closest to actual exploits together with the sloppy BG2 AI + being able to disengage mid fight and basically spam all buffs in the game each fight in most areas.



When it comes to mages being 100% broken and OP they do come with game knowledge though so I would call it way more legit.

I'm really curious how BG3 will work on higher levels though. For now we are still on low levels encounters so rather than BG2 the direct comparison would be BG1 actually. And when comparing low levels adventures of BG1 to BG3 I think there's no comparison and BG3 just straight up did it 100% better. From all aspects apart from party banters.

This! The immediate comparison in my mind was: In BG1 when I was stuck at these levels, it was incredibly boring and shallow and just did not feel fun for more most classes. Also found the wilderness incredibly boring and 'secrets' to find incredibly lacking, compared to BG2. BG3 has none of this. Just the way the system work--from the many ways to tackle the story, from the verticality of the battle space, how elements combine similar to D:OS, to having actual actions vs bonus action abilities to use--just makes BG3 superior to BG1 in every way. Also having incantations to use makes spellcasters infinitely more interesting to play.

Though, the comparison was about BG2. I don't think it's fair to compare this early. I disagree with the statement that BG3 doesn't feel like a Baldur's Gate game. I don't know if it's because a lot more was added to EA since this thread started, or if people weren't looking, but I see many nods to the previous Baldur's Gate games. I'm already confident BG3 will surpass my expectations and top BG1 and BG2 for me. BG2 was a beautiful, but flawed game. With player mods having to correct glaring issues, or make fights better. The summary of all the exploits above highlights in detail many reasons why, though I enjoyed BG2 a lot, I'm not holding it up on this amazing pedestal of mastery. That and the characters were pretty shallow as well. It's like I'm remembering a different game than some people.

I was a teen when I played BG2 and I still remember clearly my first reaction to BG2 all these years later. I didn't know the system that well and it was my first RTWP game. I died a lot in that first dungeon. Save scummed. Was hating just how bad it felt at times, but stubbornly changing up abilities and way I approached fights until I made it through. Which subsequently made me fall in love with the game, and get better at the game. And in a lot of ways shaped how I enjoy games and having to figure out that initial approach to how my character, abilities and companions all work together to tackle an encounter.

But what REALLY stuck with me over the years with BG2 wasn't thinking it was superb character or story writing, though the story I enjoyed well enough. It was things like being a Rogue and taking over the thieves guild, or a Druid and getting the Grove, etc. IT was how I could make some dark decision, and trying to become a vampire though that didn't work out. It was to exploration and discovery of areas and cool unique items that could work for my build. And I also agree with an earlier post that stated there were many ways to tackle story points that didn't feel linear to me at all in BG3. And if we were going to compare Act 1 BG3 with BG2, I'm pretty sure it would be more like all the stuff prior to branching off to discover the different class story arcs. Not much different IMO. I felt like I had just as much--if not more--agency to get lost, going around looking for secrets and actually finding to my delight that it would turn something up in BG3. The side quests are comparable. Though being in a city for BG2 was much more saturated with mini quests. But BG2 and BG3 are very similar in that at the start you are trying to solve 1 problem, and slowly learning that there is a much bigger story going on that you're getting yourself caught up in. In BG2 it was Imoen being taken and wanting to get her back, in BG3 it's not wanting to become a mindflayer and realizing there's actually a lot more going on with the tadpole and trying to get it removed. I'd even argue BG3 is more about you than BG2 was at the start of the game, but in neither case do you really have any idea of what's going on.

And as far as companions--thus far--goes. There's really no comparison. The voice acting is really good and having your companions actually be a living avatar moving around, reacting, and having facial expression is far superior to just voice alone, which to me wasn't that stellar in BG2. I hated Imoen. I didn't care about her. I didn't think the way she acted was compelling. Her reason for getting captured after the dungeon felt forced. But I remember thinking, oh good, I don't have to deal with her which naturally led to me puttig off the rescue as long as possible, discovering all the major quest arcs you can do prior. Minsc was a half-wit, without much going for him. Would he even stand out as much without Boo? Opinion of him was even worse in BG1. Jaheira was ok. I love Druids so I cared to be cool with her; even though she was always so judgemental. In contrast, even though some of the companions I started out with disliking in BG3, they felt more real and like breathing characters with their own issues. Esp when the game started hinting at deeper sides to them. If you know about Githyanki, you know why Lae'zel is the way she is. You start to see the facade for her own insecurities. LIke you literally get to experience her starting to change towards your character. All the others except for Shadowheart are pretty jovial to you from the start, but their layers peel back in other ways. I'm not going to sit here and do a psychoanalysis on all the companions. But there's an earlier comment I disagree with that said something along the lines of making them obnoxious doesn't give them depth. I kind feel like some of the nuances are kind of being missed. Is it perfection? No. But every single companion had something about them, that despite my first reaction to them, made me want to get to know them more. Story reveal and things they let slip, made me want to know the 'why' of it all.

Needless to say, I'm thoroughly enjoying BG3 early access. Was initially not going to touch it til full release but got bored waiting for a MMO to launch. And now I absolutely love the game, can't wait to see full release, which will add sooo much more to game. And not just ACt 2 and 3, but a lot of stuff withheld in from Act 1 apparently.
Posted By: IrenicusBG3 Re: How does BG3 compare to BG2? - 09/07/21 03:24 AM
Originally Posted by Sozz
Is art design Larian or WotC's doing? Have you seen recent representations of the Forgotten Realms, and BG for that matter?

There might be another issue, BG:I had the more generic setting, whereas Athkatla was a more interesting and active part of the game in BG:II, so people coming from BG:II to BG:III which is set in Baldur's Gate might find it wanting

Feel free to tell me how I'm wrong about BG:I, I love it, but the last time I replayed it was to see how BGtutu worked.

I meant the overall art of the game, not only the visuals (which you are correct BG1 is very simplistic). That includes the UI, hand drawn art sketchs for items, the fonts, the books, the little parchment that appears when you hover over NPCs. All this attention to details that defined how BG looked. There was an artistic coherence. I think Bethesda successfully incorporated many similar details of the original Fallouts. BG3 looks gamey (like DOS2), but I think they will work on that before releasing it.
Posted By: Clawfoot Re: How does BG3 compare to BG2? - 09/07/21 06:08 PM
If it wasn't called BG3 and set in a familiar area of the map, I wouldn't know it had anything to do with Baldur's Gate. The game feels nothing whatsoever like its predecessors. Different style, tone, theme and feel. It is the next Divinity game dressed up in a thin veneer of Baldur's Gate. I particularly dislike the way everything has to be so comedic and camp and weirdly anthromorphized. Why are the goblins likeable scamps who speak with a Cockney accent? Why are the ogres pure meme comic relief? Why is everything either adorable or funny? BG2 had isolated pockets of comic relief placed strategically throughout a mature, gritty setting. BG3 is just pure memes and campiness, everything is so low-brow. That worked fine in Divinity which was a game designed wholly around that style. It doesn't work here. The cartoonishness of everything makes me retch. Spam-eating food for healing? Shoving people thirty feet away? Throwing your boots at an enemy to deal damage? shoving your weapon into fire to deal fire damage? Walking on a puddle of poison deals damage? Ugh. It's a cartoon RPG and I'm so disappointed that they couldn't divest themselves of the unrealistic, cartoonish memefest that was Divinity.
Posted By: Terminator2020 Re: How does BG3 compare to BG2? - 10/07/21 01:27 PM
Originally Posted by alice_ashpool
My opinion is that Baldur's Gate 3, at least the EA, is not as broken as Baldur's Gate 1 and 2 and has far fewer exploits.
BG3 is broken in some things... was at least you could animate corpses of slain enemies Beholder, Minotaurs have them follow you as an army that helps unless the bug is fixed.

Now that they have also said that multiclassing will be included before full release I am pretty sure this game can become more broken.
I find it odd to compare BG2 to BG3. BG2 was epic levels even beyond level 20. BG3 is like BG1 starting from level 1.

Well Goblins in BG games does not super much hitpoints and talk a lot like in BG3... Well so far In BG I find more Goblin talk then most other races of none party companions lol.

The food does not heal in BG 1 and BG2. There is no advantage of higher ground in BG1 and BG2. Less environmental usage in old BG games.
Brutes like Ogres most of them should be idiots and not talk a lot like in BG3. I have a feeling many Goblins and Ogres are way smart in BG3 for their race what they should be.

There are really good characters in BG1 and BG2. I have yet to find a really good alignment companion in BG3. Will? He is more like suicidal and a bit to hardcore on risking the party lifes.. not either what I would say a good character and he has his Succubine that makes him hard to place as a good character.

Companions is though a bit hard to compare but in old BG games they are less problematic to deal with mostly but very alingment focused. If you have Evil and Good characters in same group in old BG games there can be major problems even violence and party group disbanding.

I know that in Patch 5 companion behaviour in BG3 might change a bit to say more friendly and Shadowhearth has a secret.

What parts do I like more in BG3?
The graphics and music. Cinematic story telling. Romance and hopefully nudity.

That being said Elves look more like Elves in old BG games.
Now I am not a hater of BG3 and want to play BG3. However BG1 and BG2 are excellent classics.
© Larian Studios forums