|
|
|
stranger
|
OP
stranger
Joined: Oct 2020
|
Dear dear Larian, Have you guys actually played BG1 and BG2? I even sent a linkedin message to Sven warning him about exactly what is being reported now by articles all over the net: the game is not fun. Kindly read: https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2020...rpg-amazing-rendering-engine/?comments=1It is an HONEST article, that clearly details the good, the bad and the ugly. Take this comment: "It looks like they have captured the 5e mechanics quite precisely, the checks, turns consisting of separate movement, action, and bonus action, wizards being survivable because of cantrips, etc. But they also seem to have captured the experience of having (difficult person) as a DM - that double check situation is stupid and they should feel stupid for scripting it that way, and check successes should never, ever, have negative results, and certainly not involve more checks from a conflicting stat (players likely to pass a difficult INT check probably don't have a high WIS, especially in the early game). Larian should be ashamed of themselves, they know how to balance a game while still being difficult." I do not want to enter a game where the entire party hates me. Where there is no care, camaraderie, no kinship. Getting the mechanics is all well and good- but putting in the love and care, that Gorion had for myself, he DIED for me in BG1- made me so invested in the game that I finished it. I know you want early access to point out flaws that are mechanical- bugs here, bugs there- but the actual problem, that will stop many people from playing the game, is having a game whose story is utterly devoid of warmth, love, kinship. Why not revamp- do a story of a group of people, who care for each other, who are then taken off, and you find some, and are able to move forward with them etc. Seriously. The story has to be good, everything ELSE (like the game) is built on top. If the players are made to feel uncared for, by a product they have purchased, I think it is reasonable to expect they want their time and money back, as per that article. The fix required goes beyond just fixing bugs. It needs QUALITY ASSURANCE beyond mere TESTING- and I think you guys do not know the difference. A good story brings heart, right from the get go. Where is the heart here? Have you got the budget to redo the story?
Last edited by vometia; 07/10/20 01:15 AM. Reason: link
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Jun 2014
|
It's more like an excessive article tbh. I found the dialogue and the new camera quite engaging, unlike DOS2 top down.
|
|
|
|
|
|
stranger
|
|
stranger
Joined: Mar 2017
|
It's more like an excessive article tbh. I found the dialogue and the new camera quite engaging, unlike DOS2 top down. I just found it weird. So many of the negatives were positives in disguise, like the Illithids' space ship being too awesome, and one of the Illithids dominating innocent people. My guess is he honestly didn't like companions being so antagonistic at first, and the rest is just spin to make it fit the same tone as the companion stuff.
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Jan 2009
|
The OP of this topic seems to have already pre-judged the game and found it lacking, and is only looking for an excuse to condemn it. The writer of that article claims to be a D&D enthusiast for 40 years, yet is unfamiliar with the 5e rules about how actions, bonus actions, and movement works. He also complains about fight with the mind-controlled fishermen being hard to avoid, but... you can take a ranged character, sneak around the edge and use the ranged attack to finish off the Mind Flayer. Attack averted. I did that the first time I encountered that, without bothering to try talking to them first.
|
|
|
|
|
|
apprentice
|
|
apprentice
Joined: Oct 2020
|
Dear TheStoryTeller I feel I must disagree with many of the points you have made. With decades of both running and playing quite a few TTRPGs in my day (as well as playing the old Baldur's games) I will do my best to defend my stance respectfully and clearly. 1: Nearly every point the article you linked is a frustration stemming specifically from the choices of that particular player: - They write about how Astarion ends up in your party. Odd, He didn't end up in mine. I didn't take kindly to his tricks.)
- The illithid encounter they mention also had a much higher success rate for my character than it did for their character. Complaining about a persuasion check based on a character you've built that is terrible at persuading people is betraying the very nature of TTRPGs in the first place. Failing forward is a big part of the game, and expecting to win every single check is not conducive to the way this game is played.
- They mention gripes with combat. They say there doesn't seem to be a cover system but that is wrong. I took advantage of cover in almost every fight. They complain also about the party makeup, which is only a problem for this player specifically. I picked a cleric and swept nearly every battle with ease. Hmm...This reviewer mentions frustration with movement or actions. That's odd, because it plays just like 5e. You have movement, and also, an action, a bonus action, and a reaction. "In reality, those characters both used their one action—usually an attack or spell, sometimes a potion chug or helping up a downed comrade—and now the only thing they can do is move." <<< This is a result of their choices as a player[i/]. My characters actually have more options per turn here than they would if we were playing 5e. A typical turn for me might look like jumping to a high point, attacking, then moving into cover. Or, casting a spell, running away, and then hiding. I get that they prefer the mechanics of other games, but this system is built to accommodate 5e rules/players and it does that very well.
- They talk about verisimilitude with the characters. This I actually agree with, to an extent. It is strange that every enemy is hyper-intelligent, and it is strange that during cutscenes NPCs and party members are blankly staring off into the distance twiddling their thumbs. However, the one point I have to disagree with wholeheartedly is the idea that your party hates you, or that they [i]should love you. If you found yourself in their shoes, you would likely be just as distrusting, just as unnerved and upset, and just as hostile to people you've never met before. This is mirrored not only in real-life, but especially in the world of TTRPGs. When a new party member is introduced, and they don't immediately trust or are forthright with you, that creates an opportunity for growth, drama, and character development. This is a feature I greatly appreciate, as having them immediately be your best friend would feel very, very...fake. Also, spoiler alert, the next NPC you meet is super friendly and asks you if he can join you before you have a chance to ask them.
2: So as you can see per my last point, you're not necessarily entering a party where everybody hates you. Part of the game is building trust with people you do not know, getting to know them better, and perhaps even coming to love them on day. This type of character development could not be possible if you started the game off as childhood best friends. It's also not, in my opinion, very fun or interesting if there is no drama between the characters. Perhaps that's just a personal preference, but I bet your favorite books, movies, tv shows, and video games would agree with me. 3: [q]"Seriously. The story has to be good, everything ELSE (like the game) is built on top. If the players are made to feel uncared for, by a product they have purchased, I think it is reasonable to expect they want their time and money back, as per that article."[/q] I understand your preference may be for a feel-good story of warmth and compassion, but I have to admit that those types of stories are quite antithetical to the core of the D&D gameplay loop. It sounds like this game isn't for you, and that's totally fine. These concerns, however, fail to hold a light to the long legacy of play at the heart of D&D, and the willingness to tell a difficult, gut-wrenching, hero's journey. This game is almost exactly what I expected. I played the old BGs. I played the Divinity games. I've played/run crunchy rules-heavy TTRPG, and rules-light murderous TTRPGs like Troika or Mork Borg. I think that the person reviewing BG3 was expecting something that Larian had no intention of delivering, and in fact what they did deliver was pretty damn close to exactly what they've been promising. If you want to try the game for yourself, I recommend it without a doubt. It's got some issues with enemy AI and some other minor things regarding NPC behavior but otherwise the system it is built on is a solid one. The story so far is strong, and leaves A LOT of room for interesting development. Don't take this singular review too seriously. If you really want to know, play the game for yourself and see if you can create an entirely unique & different experience for yourself, just like I did.
Last edited by King Qyote; 07/10/20 02:06 AM. Reason: Formatting
|
|
|
|
|
|
stranger
|
|
stranger
Joined: Oct 2020
|
Trolls; don't let these little ones get off to actually getting a rise out of you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
journeyman
|
|
journeyman
Joined: Oct 2020
|
In general he's right that Larian needs to do the math on their dialogue checks though. I've said it before-requiring multiple checks where any failure is final is the same thing as imposing disadvantage, or even worse as the number of checks increases. It's an amateur DnD writer mistake if this is done as anything other than intentionally-if your adding checks like that, you want the player to fail if they aren't super specialized. That's all there is to it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
enthusiast
|
|
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2020
|
In general he's right that Larian needs to do the math on their dialogue checks though. I've said it before-requiring multiple checks where any failure is final is the same thing as imposing disadvantage, or even worse as the number of checks increases. It's an amateur DnD writer mistake if this is done as anything other than intentionally-if your adding checks like that, you want the player to fail if they aren't super specialized. That's all there is to it. Some things should be harder to accomplish socially than others. Convincing someone to change their mind on something that they have 100% faith in, and potentially have concrete evidence to support their thinking, would be hard pressed to be susceptible to change. This could be simulated with just a very high skill check that would almost be impossible to reach, or it could be represented by several logical rolls to provide difficulty without limiting it to be a check that only a character with expertise might pass. I personally prefer that they give us the ability, if we chose the right course of skill checks, to be able to pull off some stupid charlatan level conversational gymnastics to perhaps convince someone not to kill us or the like. Some of the numbers could use tweaking, but they are taking data on skill checks so I'm sure they will have it all pretty well balanced.
|
|
|
|
|
|
addict
|
|
addict
Joined: Sep 2017
|
I disagree strongly about the original posters premise of having care, camaraderie, and kinship the default state of the party. I like the companions, like that they are not pushovers/camp-followers, but have distinct personalities, their own agency and often conflicting interests. As long as there is a dynamic range, path to redemption/damnation, as there seem to be - I prefer having to work for what the OP apparently takes for granted. The OP of this topic seems to have already pre-judged the game and found it lacking, and is only looking for an excuse to condemn it. The writer of that article claims to be a D&D enthusiast for 40 years, yet is unfamiliar with the 5e rules about how actions, bonus actions, and movement works. He also complains about fight with the mind-controlled fishermen being hard to avoid, but... you can take a ranged character, sneak around the edge and use the ranged attack to finish off the Mind Flayer. Attack averted. I did that the first time I encountered that, without bothering to try talking to them first. Agreed. Also there are multiple conversation checks that lead to not fighting them too. Did your way get you any xp though? I don't think you were rewarded solving this through conversation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
journeyman
|
|
journeyman
Joined: Oct 2020
|
[*]They talk about verisimilitude with the characters. This I actually agree with, to an extent. It is strange that every enemy is hyper-intelligent, and it is strange that during cutscenes NPCs and party members are blankly staring off into the distance twiddling their thumbs. However, the one point I have to disagree with wholeheartedly is the idea that your party hates you, or that they should love you. If you found yourself in their shoes, you would likely be just as distrusting, just as unnerved and upset, and just as hostile to people you've never met before. This is mirrored not only in real-life, but especially in the world of TTRPGs. When a new party member is introduced, and they don't immediately trust or are forthright with you, that creates an opportunity for growth, drama, and character development. This is a feature I greatly appreciate, as having them immediately be your best friend would feel very, very...fake. Also, spoiler alert, the next NPC you meet is super friendly and asks you if he can join you before you have a chance to ask them.[/list]
2: So as you can see per my last point, you're not necessarily entering a party where everybody hates you. Part of the game is building trust with people you do not know, getting to know them better, and perhaps even coming to love them on day. This type of character development could not be possible if you started the game off as childhood best friends. It's also not, in my opinion, very fun or interesting if there is no drama between the characters. Perhaps that's just a personal preference, but I bet your favorite books, movies, tv shows, and video games would agree with me.
3: [q]"Seriously. The story has to be good, everything ELSE (like the game) is built on top. If the players are made to feel uncared for, by a product they have purchased, I think it is reasonable to expect they want their time and money back, as per that article."[/q] I understand your preference may be for a feel-good story of warmth and compassion, but I have to admit that those types of stories are quite antithetical to the core of the D&D gameplay loop. It sounds like this game isn't for you, and that's totally fine. These concerns, however, fail to hold a light to the long legacy of play at the heart of D&D, and the willingness to tell a difficult, gut-wrenching, hero's journey.
This game is almost exactly what I expected. I played the old BGs. I played the Divinity games. I've played/run crunchy rules-heavy TTRPG, and rules-light murderous TTRPGs like Troika or Mork Borg. I think that the person reviewing BG3 was expecting something that Larian had no intention of delivering, and in fact what they did deliver was pretty damn close to exactly what they've been promising. If you want to try the game for yourself, I recommend it without a doubt. It's got some issues with enemy AI and some other minor things regarding NPC behavior but otherwise the system it is built on is a solid one. The story so far is strong, and leaves A LOT of room for interesting development. Don't take this singular review too seriously. If you really want to know, play the game for yourself and see if you can create an entirely unique & different experience for yourself, just like I did.
Thank you for replying in such a way. I agree with this and hope more people read what you have said
|
|
|
|
|
|
journeyman
|
|
journeyman
Joined: Oct 2020
|
In general he's right that Larian needs to do the math on their dialogue checks though. I've said it before-requiring multiple checks where any failure is final is the same thing as imposing disadvantage, or even worse as the number of checks increases. It's an amateur DnD writer mistake if this is done as anything other than intentionally-if your adding checks like that, you want the player to fail if they aren't super specialized. That's all there is to it. Some things should be harder to accomplish socially than others. Convincing someone to change their mind on something that they have 100% faith in, and potentially have concrete evidence to support their thinking, would be hard pressed to be susceptible to change. This could be simulated with just a very high skill check that would almost be impossible to reach, or it could be represented by several logical rolls to provide difficulty without limiting it to be a check that only a character with expertise might pass. I personally prefer that they give us the ability, if we chose the right course of skill checks, to be able to pull off some stupid charlatan level conversational gymnastics to perhaps convince someone not to kill us or the like. Some of the numbers could use tweaking, but they are taking data on skill checks so I'm sure they will have it all pretty well balanced. Agreed, but the question is if Larian is accounting for the difficulty they are adding.
|
|
|
|
|
|
enthusiast
|
|
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2020
|
Agreed, but the question is if Larian is accounting for the difficulty they are adding.
True true. There's definitely one scene in particular that made it essentially impossible for my good aligned ranger to not take some morally questionable actions lol.
|
|
|
|
|
|
addict
|
|
addict
Joined: Oct 2020
|
So far, I'm having lots of fun with this game. The only places I'm finding disappointment is with how they implement some of the skills into their dialogue trees. Or, when they decide to replace a dialogue tree puzzle with a die roll.
|
|
|
|
|
|
journeyman
|
|
journeyman
Joined: Oct 2020
|
The OP of this topic seems to have already pre-judged the game and found it lacking, and is only looking for an excuse to condemn it. The writer of that article claims to be a D&D enthusiast for 40 years, yet is unfamiliar with the 5e rules about how actions, bonus actions, and movement works. He also complains about fight with the mind-controlled fishermen being hard to avoid, but... you can take a ranged character, sneak around the edge and use the ranged attack to finish off the Mind Flayer. Attack averted. I did that the first time I encountered that, without bothering to try talking to them first. you can also use the knockout action to do non-lethal damage
|
|
|
|
|
|
addict
|
|
addict
Joined: Oct 2020
|
The OP of this topic seems to have already pre-judged the game and found it lacking, and is only looking for an excuse to condemn it. The writer of that article claims to be a D&D enthusiast for 40 years, yet is unfamiliar with the 5e rules about how actions, bonus actions, and movement works. He also complains about fight with the mind-controlled fishermen being hard to avoid, but... you can take a ranged character, sneak around the edge and use the ranged attack to finish off the Mind Flayer. Attack averted. I did that the first time I encountered that, without bothering to try talking to them first. you can also use the knockout action to do non-lethal damage The only time that turned into a fight on me, I just directed my first attack at the Mind Flayer....encounter ended...one-shot.
|
|
|
|
|
