Larian Banner
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2
Joined: Oct 2020
Z
ZubDub Offline OP
stranger
OP Offline
stranger
Z
Joined: Oct 2020
Let’s talk Divinity 3, I mean, Baldur’s Gate III.

To clarify on some cases here, by no means am I trying to judge BGIII as a full game, because to do so would be inherently unfair to the development team. Instead, what I aim to do here is bring to bear the number of shortfalls I feel are integral to the game itself and, without action taken by the development team itself, will likely go unanswered. Likewise, I understand if some complaints I bring up might be considered redundant in a few areas, but I feel a full-scope address of the game as it sits is the most effective.

Being forthright? As somebody who is an avid fan of the original Baldur’s Gate PC games, I can say, without a doubt, that this is not a Baldur’s Gate game, by any stretch of the imagination. While I understand that this game was not marketed to be, nor intended to be a direct continuation of the Bhallspawn storyline, I would hope there to be a reasonable tie-in. On the overall, though, as a game, BGIII feels separated in every form and fashion from the actual Baldur’s Gate franchise, which leads me into what is undoubtedly my biggest overall complaint. BGIII is not a Baldur’s Gate game, it is “Larian Studios brings you Dungeons and Dragons: The Forgotten Realms”. From storyline to gameplay, the only thing in common I see between this game and the originals is that it takes place in the Forgotten Realms setting and is labeled under the Baldur’s Gate franchise.

Avoiding mechanics for the time being, I feel the part of this game most lacking is the story. The scripting and flow of both characters and story makes the pacing seem overly clunky, as if it were an afterthought. And, again, while I understand this game is still early development, I would hope that the story, as it is released, is done so in a polished fashion. Thus far, both the scripts and the characters themselves feel as if they were just thrown into the world, with no real thought of who they are, or how they interact. Character dialogue reminds me of what I hear on my Friday night D&D sessions and, while those are fun, I do not want to pay $60 for dialogue I can get on a Friday night for the low low cost of some chips and soda.

Tying into the story and characters, comes my frustration with the available companions, and how utterly forgettable they are. I hope that there is not only a plan to add significantly more party member options, but also a goal to refine those ones which currently exist, because it feels as if I’m swimming in a sea of tropes. After coming up on now two whole playthroughs, I’ve found no love for any of the current supporting characters. Along with this is my irritation for what feels like being railroaded into having to play a mean or obnoxious character myself in order to establish friendly ties with my party if wanting to run a balanced party. The fact that the only two “Good aligned” companion characters thus far are arcane casters, makes it impossible to run a “Good aligned” party at this time. As I said, I hope this will be fleshed out with new companions in later updates, but, as it sits, I feel even the current companions are generally shallow, and uninspiring in any capacity. I’d say the only palatable companion at this stage is everyone’s malignant neighborhood vampire spawn, who is a trope unto himself.

Gameplay? I won’t gripe about the occasional CTD, or animation glitch too heavily. Why? Because this is early access, I don’t expect everything to function, and will happily submit reports as I come across But, mechanics-wise? This game plays like I expect a 1980 Monte Carlo with a shot suspension and misaligned front end would handle a mountain road. The turn-based initiative system is fine, but the fact that there is no real-time pause and command function is beyond frustrating. Lacking the ability to stage an effective ambush or full surprise round with my party by pausing, issuing commands from stealth, and then letting the surprise round run is beyond irritating. Amusingly enough, if this single feature were added to the game, I am certain I would be much more amicable towards the functionality of the gameplay itself. Though, admittedly, I find the constant dice rolling to be annoyingly prevalent, but, I can live with it, provided the algorithm which “Rolls” does so fairly and accurately represents an actual roll of the dice.

On the overall? As the game currently sits, it plays a great deal unlike a PC Baldur’s Gate game. The scripting seems an afterthought, the characters undeveloped, and the story largely uninteresting. The characters you find yourself surrounded by appear as mundane and rudimentary as one might expect to find in the unimaginative “Sample character” section in the PHB for a given race or class. The gameplay itself is not my cup of tea, courtesy the clunky mechanics and a lack of pause to command feature to set up ambushes and surprise rounds in your favor. It’s pretty to look at, and I appreciate the effort at bringing the world of Forgotten Realms into modern PC gaming, but the manner in which it is done cannot be mistaken for a Baldur’s Gate game. As I said, the most apt descriptor/title for this game would be “Dungeons and Dragons: The Forgotten Realms” by Larian Studios. I appreciate the effort, and what will undoubtedly be a beautiful game with a much more polished mechanic come full-scale release of the game. Unfortunately, it is so dissimilar in every capacity that I just cannot stomach calling it a Baldur’s Gate game. I saw an article title which said, to the effect, that the author would like their 15 hours of gameplay back, and while I will not say something so extreme, I will say that, had I played a demo beforehand, I would have likely just not purchased this game at all.

With that in mind, what’s the recap as to what I’d like to see be done to improve the game?

• Refine the storyline so that it is more compelling
• Polish the scripts of existing characters to make dialogue more interesting and rewarding
• Polish existing and future characters to provide depth, rather than generic character concepts
• Encourage the story to develop in a way which actually draws the player in, rather than pushes them away with constant minor annoyances
Add a pause and command feature to better facilitate party ambushes on the player’s behalf

Cheers

Last edited by ZubDub; 14/10/20 04:08 PM.
Joined: Oct 2020
P
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
P
Joined: Oct 2020
I feel like the companions and most characters até actually really good, of course there os some fone tunning tô be made, but that's something the devs até probabbly aware too.

The storyline so far is very interesting for me and goes well with your available companions. Though I relate to some of your points, It can improve, but for me it's definitly going in the right dirrection and I triste the devs to improve on It and deliver.

There is already a pause mechnic, the turn based mode you enter with space bar.

Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Netherlands
member
Offline
member
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Netherlands
I would just like to point out to you that this is early access and you were asked to do an evil playthrough, hence the evil/neutral companions. That said, you do have some points but they're all over these forums so I'm not going into that again.

Joined: Oct 2020
Z
ZubDub Offline OP
stranger
OP Offline
stranger
Z
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by pgmoro
There is already a pause mechnic, the turn based mode you enter with space bar.


That's not a pause mechanic, that's transitioning to a round-by-round action outside of initiative. It does not facilitate simultaneous party actions outside of combat, or when initiating combat via a party held surprise round.

Originally Posted by Moirnelithe
I would just like to point out to you that this is early access and you were asked to do an evil playthrough, hence the evil/neutral companions. That said, you do have some points but they're all over these forums so I'm not going into that again.


I honestly never saw anything that asked players to be evil out the gate. I saw them say that they were going to provide incentives to be evil if you chose to be. Those are very different messages to me. I personally dislike the feeling of being railroaded into playing an evil character.

Joined: Oct 2020
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by ZubDub

Being forthright? As somebody who is an avid fan of the original Baldur’s Gate PC games, I can say, without a doubt, that this is not a Baldur’s Gate game, by any stretch of the imagination. While I understand that this game was not marketed to be, nor intended to be a direct continuation of the Bhallspawn storyline, I would hope there to be a reasonable tie-in. On the overall, though, as a game, BGIII feels separated in every form and fashion from the actual Baldur’s Gate franchise, which leads me into what is undoubtedly my biggest overall complaint. BGIII is not a Baldur’s Gate game, it is “Larian Studios brings you Dungeons and Dragons: The Forgotten Realms”. From storyline to gameplay, the only thing in common I see between this game and the originals is that it takes place in the Forgotten Realms setting and is labeled under the Baldur’s Gate franchise.


Everyone who screams "THIS IS NOT BALDUR'S GATE, WHAT THE HELL IS THIS?!" always says the exact same thing, thinking they know best, and thinking their defense is iron-clad and they're right in every sense of the word.
But you forget a few things.

1. Larian did not call this Baldur's Gate. Wizard of the Coast called this Baldur's Gate. If Wizards wanted this to be called something else, like "Dungeons & Dragons: Mindflayer Saga", they would have.
2. Y'all scream "This isn't my Baldur's Gate! This is totally different! It's not RTWP, it's turn-based! It's not the Bhaal saga!", but always forget that things like Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance existed, and you always conveniently never bring it up or say "Well that's different!" or "That doesn't apply!", but it certainly does. You can't choose one half of the narrative and exclude the part that destroys your argument out of convenience to support your points.

You can't say this isn't Baldur's Gate without taking those two things into the equation.

Last edited by Noraver; 14/10/20 03:31 PM.
Joined: Oct 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by ZubDub
Let’s talk Divinity 3, I mean, Baldur’s Gate III.


Stopped reading there.


Necromancy is just recycling...
Joined: Oct 2020
Z
ZubDub Offline OP
stranger
OP Offline
stranger
Z
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Noraver
Originally Posted by ZubDub

Being forthright? As somebody who is an avid fan of the original Baldur’s Gate PC games, I can say, without a doubt, that this is not a Baldur’s Gate game, by any stretch of the imagination. While I understand that this game was not marketed to be, nor intended to be a direct continuation of the Bhallspawn storyline, I would hope there to be a reasonable tie-in. On the overall, though, as a game, BGIII feels separated in every form and fashion from the actual Baldur’s Gate franchise, which leads me into what is undoubtedly my biggest overall complaint. BGIII is not a Baldur’s Gate game, it is “Larian Studios brings you Dungeons and Dragons: The Forgotten Realms”. From storyline to gameplay, the only thing in common I see between this game and the originals is that it takes place in the Forgotten Realms setting and is labeled under the Baldur’s Gate franchise.


Everyone who screams "THIS IS NOT BALDUR'S GATE, WHAT THE HELL IS THIS?!" always says the exact same thing, thinking they know best, and thinking their defense is iron-clad and they're right in every sense of the word.
But you forget a few things.

1. Larian did not call this Baldur's Gate. Wizard of the Coast called this Baldur's Gate. If Wizards wanted this to be called something else, like "Dungeons & Dragons: Mindflayer Saga", they would have.
2. Y'all scream "This isn't my Baldur's Gate! This is totally different! It's not RTWP, it's turn-based! It's not the Bhaal saga!", but always forget that things like Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance existed, and you always conveniently never bring it up or say "Well that's different!" or "That doesn't apply!", but it certainly does. You can't choose one half of the narrative and exclude the part that destroys your argument out of convenience to support your points.

You can't say this isn't Baldur's Gate without taking those two things into the equation.


Entertainingly enough, I know you didn't bother to read what was stated, as I very explicitly clarified a comparison to the previous Baldur's Gate PC games. So, before you look to criticize the points being made, actually read them before, you know, criticizing them. That said, it's irrelevant to me who elected to name this game as part of the Baldur's Gate franchise, because that was not a point of my argument. My point in comparison was that this game plays nothing like, reads nothing like, and behaves nothing like the previous Baldur's Gate PC games, which is a point I generally dislike. At the very least, I would expect scripting and storyline capabilities to be alike in this respect.

But, again, I would encourage you to actually read what you're addressing before you try to address it.

Originally Posted by Druid_NPC
Originally Posted by ZubDub
Let’s talk Divinity 3, I mean, Baldur’s Gate III.


Stopped reading there.


Okay.

Last edited by ZubDub; 14/10/20 03:36 PM.
Joined: Oct 2020
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
Joined: Oct 2020
Mary Sues? A Mary Sue is an author's hypercompetent self-insert. Where are the Mary Sues in this game? No character is hypercompetent and every one has flaws. As for the self-insert if you design your custom character to be a self-insert that's what it's going to be

Joined: Jan 2009
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Jan 2009
Originally Posted by ZubDub
Gameplay? I won’t gripe about the occasional CTD, or animation glitch too heavily. Why? Because this is early access, I don’t expect everything to function, and will happily submit reports as I come across But, mechanics-wise? This game plays like I expect a 1980 Monte Carlo with a shot suspension and misaligned front end would handle a mountain road. The turn-based initiative system is fine, but the fact that there is no real-time pause and command function is beyond frustrating. Lacking the ability to stage an effective ambush or full surprise round with my party by pausing, issuing commands from stealth, and then letting the surprise round run is beyond irritating.


There is a Force Turn-based mode in right now. You are right that it doesn't let you coordinate. That could work if the Ready action were added, and you could select: When Ally attacks. The amount of potential conditions the Ready action could be triggered by might be one reason why the Ready action isn't in yet.

Still, surprise rounds are in the game, I've done them, but they ARE buggy at the moment, as sometimes it seems like your own party can't act in the Surprise round, other than the initial attacker. If that was fixed, your party could get a round of attacks in properly.


Joined: Aug 2018
D
member
Offline
member
D
Joined: Aug 2018
It's amazing how someone can put so much effort into writing such a long post, yet invalidate the entire thing in the very first line.

Joined: Oct 2020
Z
ZubDub Offline OP
stranger
OP Offline
stranger
Z
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Braxton
Mary Sues? A Mary Sue is an author's hypercompetent self-insert. Where are the Mary Sues in this game? No character is hypercompetent and every one has flaws. As for the self-insert if you design your custom character to be a self-insert that's what it's going to be


I would say that the presence of annoyingly stereotypical characters is precisely that. A Priestess of Shar absent depth, a Gith warrior who is unsurprisingly chaotic evil to the point of behaving as a monolith, a vampire spawn who creeps about in textbook fashion. I can go on, but my point of contention with the supporting characters is that they behave so woefully generic, that it's as if somebody just pulled them out of the sample sections for the PHB (or MM, depending on what character you're referring to). Maybe individual quirks will be better exhibited later on in the game? Who knows? But at its current state, that is a point of concern I have regarding the characters, as they sit. This is a feedback section, after all, and this is the feedback I am providing.


Originally Posted by Stabbey
Still, surprise rounds are in the game, I've done them, but they ARE buggy at the moment, as sometimes it seems like your own party can't act in the Surprise round, other than the initial attacker. If that was fixed, your party could get a round of attacks in properly.


Which, admittedly, if this were fixed, or otherwise better polished to better facilitate party surprise arounds, would do wonders for my impression of overall gameplay. On the whole, I don't judge the game overly so in the realm of gameplay, except for this solitary feature. Hopefully it's better polished, and my issue becomes moot. I want nobody to presume that my want is for this game to turn into a dud, because, well, that'd be dumb, seeing as I spent money on it, and have no intention of pursuing a refund for it.

Joined: Oct 2020
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by ZubDub

Entertainingly enough, I know you didn't bother to read what was stated, as I very explicitly clarified a comparison to the previous Baldur's Gate PC games. So, before you look to criticize the points being made, actually read them before, you know, criticizing them. That said, it's irrelevant to me who elected to name this game as part of the Baldur's Gate franchise, because that was not a point of my argument. My point in comparison was that this game plays nothing like, reads nothing like, and behaves nothing like the previous Baldur's Gate PC games, which is a point I generally dislike. At the very least, I would expect scripting and storyline capabilities to be alike in this respect.

But, again, I would encourage you to actually read what you're addressing before you try to address it.


Entertainingly enough, I did read your post. Just because I quoted a single small part, doesn't mean I didn't read the entire thing. I'm addressing a specific point within it. Kind of like what quoting is for.

However either way, you again fail to address the Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance games. "I'm only talking about the PC Baldur's Gate games, not the other Baldur's Gate games!" is literally ignoring all evidence against your (already invalid) point because you don't feel like discussing it, or say it doesn't apply.

Evidently, it doesn't fit your narrative and support your arguments, so you won't bring it up or acknowledge it "Not being/playing like a Baldur's Gate game", despite it being directly part of the Baldur's Gate franchise.
Dark Alliance didn't play like the PC games, but nobody held it against it or the originals, because it's intended to be a different kind of game.
Baldur's Gate 3 doesn't play like the originals, because it's intended to be a different kind of game; more true to tabletop (Though they still have a long way to go to achieve this).

If games stayed the exact same throughout their franchise cycle and never evolved, we would all be playing D&D-themed Tetris right now.



Last edited by Noraver; 14/10/20 03:47 PM.
Joined: Oct 2020
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Noraver
Originally Posted by ZubDub

Being forthright? As somebody who is an avid fan of the original Baldur’s Gate PC games, I can say, without a doubt, that this is not a Baldur’s Gate game, by any stretch of the imagination. While I understand that this game was not marketed to be, nor intended to be a direct continuation of the Bhallspawn storyline, I would hope there to be a reasonable tie-in. On the overall, though, as a game, BGIII feels separated in every form and fashion from the actual Baldur’s Gate franchise, which leads me into what is undoubtedly my biggest overall complaint. BGIII is not a Baldur’s Gate game, it is “Larian Studios brings you Dungeons and Dragons: The Forgotten Realms”. From storyline to gameplay, the only thing in common I see between this game and the originals is that it takes place in the Forgotten Realms setting and is labeled under the Baldur’s Gate franchise.


Everyone who screams "THIS IS NOT BALDUR'S GATE, WHAT THE HELL IS THIS?!" always says the exact same thing, thinking they know best, and thinking their defense is iron-clad and they're right in every sense of the word.
But you forget a few things.

1. Larian did not call this Baldur's Gate. Wizard of the Coast called this Baldur's Gate. If Wizards wanted this to be called something else, like "Dungeons & Dragons: Mindflayer Saga", they would have.
2. Y'all scream "This isn't my Baldur's Gate! This is totally different! It's not RTWP, it's turn-based! It's not the Bhaal saga!", but always forget that things like Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance existed, and you always conveniently never bring it up or say "Well that's different!" or "That doesn't apply!", but it certainly does. You can't choose one half of the narrative and exclude the part that destroys your argument out of convenience to support your points.

You can't say this isn't Baldur's Gate without taking those two things into the equation.



1. Regardless of who named it that, it is reasonable to expect a Baldur's Gate game to feel like it's a Baldur's Gate game. A modern rendition, yes, not a copy-paste of an IE game, but still a main Baldur's Gate installment.
2. Yeah, and they are right (on one thing anyway). There's a difference between a main entry (number 3) and a spin-off. Spin-offs can be a whole different genre or medium and a different feel. Sequels are a promise of a worthy successor (not just quality-wise), even if it's not the same saga and 20 years later (and a hundred in the story).

And while the OP is very critical and I disagree with him on several points, the only aggressive person here is you.

Joined: Oct 2020
Z
ZubDub Offline OP
stranger
OP Offline
stranger
Z
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Noraver
Originally Posted by ZubDub

Entertainingly enough, I know you didn't bother to read what was stated, as I very explicitly clarified a comparison to the previous Baldur's Gate PC games. So, before you look to criticize the points being made, actually read them before, you know, criticizing them. That said, it's irrelevant to me who elected to name this game as part of the Baldur's Gate franchise, because that was not a point of my argument. My point in comparison was that this game plays nothing like, reads nothing like, and behaves nothing like the previous Baldur's Gate PC games, which is a point I generally dislike. At the very least, I would expect scripting and storyline capabilities to be alike in this respect.

But, again, I would encourage you to actually read what you're addressing before you try to address it.


Entertainingly enough, I did read your post. Just because I quoted a single small part, doesn't mean I didn't read the entire thing. I'm addressing a specific point within it. Kind of like what quoting is for.

However either way, you again fail to address the Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance games. "I'm only talking about the PC Baldur's Gate games, not the other Baldur's Gate games!" is literally ignoring all evidence against your (already invalid) point because you don't feel like discussing it, or say it doesn't apply.

Evidently, it doesn't fit your narrative and support your arguments, so you won't bring it up or acknowledge it "Not being/playing like a Baldur's Gate game", despite it being directly part of the Baldur's Gate franchise.
Dark Alliance didn't play like the PC games, but nobody held it against it or the originals, because it's a different kind of game.

If games stayed the exact same throughout their franchise cycle and never evolved, we would all be playing D&D-themed Tetris right now.


Not addressing Dark Alliance is not "Failing" at anything when it is irrelevant to the current topic. It was a console based game that had to act within the confines associated to being a console game. I have no expectations of a console game behaving like a PC game, thus the lack of a comparison between the two here. Comparing PC games to console games has always been a false equivalence. You injecting it here is little more than whataboutism in an effort to establish some needless "Aha" with response to my issue that, as a PC game, Baldur's Gate III lacks the gameplay style, storyline, scripting, and essentially every other facet of similarity to the previous Baldur's Gate PC games. I find that disappointing. If you don't, then that's fine, but it does not discredit or otherwise soundly counter my points thus far. You are a different sort of consumer, with a different expectation for the game. I would expect that a game, which titles itself as "Baldur's Gate IIII", would be comparable in some fashion to Baldur's Gate I and Baldur's Gate II (plus all associated expansions) because, again, the naming convention implies it is directly associated to the previous two. That's not something Dark Alliance had, hence it being named "Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance".

That said, since you seem fixated on Dark Alliance? I also disliked the console games for everything from gameplay to story. What now?



Originally Posted by Uncle Lester
1. Regardless of who named it that, it is reasonable to expect a Baldur's Gate game to feel like it's a Baldur's Gate game. A modern rendition, yes, not a copy-paste of an IE game, but still a main Baldur's Gate installment.
2. Yeah, and they are right (on one thing anyway). There's a difference between a main entry (number 3) and a spin-off. Spin-offs can be a whole different genre or medium and a different feel. Sequels are a promise of a worthy successor (not just quality-wise), even if it's not the same saga and 20 years later (and a hundred in the story).

And while the OP is very critical and I disagree with him on several points, the only aggressive person here is you.



And I appreciate honest discourse. I have no issues with people disagreeing or having their own perspectives on the game. If somebody enjoys the game? I hope they do so in full. As I mentioned above, the point of this board is to provide suggestions and feedback. Nobody, developers included, have to actually act on my feedback, nor do I demand that they do. Would I, as the individual consumer, like it if my concerns wind up being addressed? Most definitely, because I think that would result in a game I found most enjoyable. We're a world of unique persons, I don't expect the world to conform to me. At the end of the day, it's entirely the developers' decisions as to the what, where, why, and how of the game. I just hope the direction takes it somewhere that I can enjoy to the fullest.

Joined: Oct 2020
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by ZubDub
I would say that the presence of annoyingly stereotypical characters is precisely that. A Priestess of Shar absent depth, a Gith warrior who is unsurprisingly chaotic evil to the point of behaving as a monolith, a vampire spawn who creeps about in textbook fashion. I can go on, but my point of contention with the supporting characters is that they behave so woefully generic, that it's as if somebody just pulled them out of the sample sections for the PHB (or MM, depending on what character you're referring to). Maybe individual quirks will be better exhibited later on in the game? Who knows? But at its current state, that is a point of concern I have regarding the characters, as they sit. This is a feedback section, after all, and this is the feedback I am providing.



Mary sue is a particular trope mate, not a stereotype. As for the characters YMMV. An aristocratic vampire is a trope sure, the Gith companion doesn't come across as chaotic evil to me. She comes across how I'd expect a gith warrior to come across; obsessed with their mandate and hostile to those that get in her way. The Priestess of Shar clearly has depth to her character as you get to know her a bit more. Luckily if you don't like these characters they're not the only one on the roster.

Joined: Oct 2020
Z
ZubDub Offline OP
stranger
OP Offline
stranger
Z
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Braxton
Mary sue is a particular trope mate, not a stereotype. As for the characters YMMV. An aristocratic vampire is a trope sure, the Gith companion doesn't come across as chaotic evil to me. She comes across how I'd expect a gith warrior to come across; obsessed with their mandate and hostile to those that get in her way. The Priestess of Shar clearly has depth to her character as you get to know her a bit more. Luckily if you don't like these characters they're not the only one on the roster.


I'm aware, I'm generalizing, but I suppose "Trope" would have been more apt. The Gith most certainly strikes me as chaotic evil, from her obsession to her mandate, to her perspective that everyone and everything else is either a tool or slave to be used. I don't find our resident Priestess of Shar to be particularly deep beyond the typical "I'm a moody edgelady who worships and evil goddess and has secrets". I just find it generally disappointing that it feels like I could find each of these companion characters in a sample character section of any of the core rulebooks. It feels like they're just an afterthought, or were thrown together with the hope that nobody would notice.

Joined: Oct 2020
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by ZubDub

Not addressing Dark Alliance is not "Failing" at anything when it is irrelevant to the current topic. It was a console based game that had to act within the confines associated to being a console game. I have no expectations of a console game behaving like a PC game, thus the lack of a comparison between the two here. Comparing PC games to console games has always been a false equivalence. You injecting it here is little more than whataboutism in an effort to establish some needless "Aha" with response to my issue that, as a PC game, Baldur's Gate III lacks the gameplay style, storyline, scripting, and essentially every other facet of similarity to the previous Baldur's Gate PC games. I find that disappointing. If you don't, then that's fine, but it does not discredit or otherwise soundly counter my points thus far. You are a different sort of consumer, with a different expectation for the game. I would expect that a game, which titles itself as "Baldur's Gate IIII", would be comparable in some fashion to Baldur's Gate I and Baldur's Gate II (plus all associated expansions) because, again, the naming convention implies it is directly associated to the previous two. That's not something Dark Alliance had, hence it being named "Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance".

That said, since you seem fixated on Dark Alliance? I also disliked the console games for everything from gameplay to story. What now?


Just because a game is titled as a sequel, does not mean it's forced to stay within the confines of the previous games.
Just because it's called Baldur's Gate 3, does not mean it has to play the exact same as Baldur's Gate 2 did. All games evolve over time, some choosing entirely different styles, despite being continuations.
Pokemon, Zelda, Final Fantasy, Super Mario; All games off the top of my head that have evolved over time, despite being sequels of each other (Zelda less so, because of its timeline issues), but they've all changed.
If your argument is that "Well, the 2 and 3 are what link them and make them sequels!", then does that discredit every other game without numbers in the title, claiming every other one is just a spin-off (Even if they're directly linked story-wise)?

It is named Baldur's Gate 3 because it is associated with the previous two. Baldur's Gate 3 is still within the same universe, will have some of the same characters (Confirmed but not spoiled, as per the Devs), and the storyline follows both the tabletop campaign, and the Bhaalspawn campaign (100 years later).

The naming doesn't force it to play like the previous titles.

My point with Dark Alliance was that everyone who claims "This isn't Baldur's Gate" always leave those titles out, and you did from the get-go. It was never a naming issue before, but now it is because of a number tacked on.
But again, despite player opinion saying it's "Not Baldur's Gate", it forever will officially be "Baldur's Gate", because Wizard of the Coast said it is, despite player ignorance being their own bliss.

Joined: Oct 2020
member
Offline
member
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by ZubDub


I would say that the presence of annoyingly stereotypical characters is precisely that. A Priestess of Shar absent depth, a Gith warrior who is unsurprisingly chaotic evil to the point of behaving as a monolith, a vampire spawn who creeps about in textbook fashion. I can go on, but my point of contention with the supporting characters is that they behave so woefully generic, that it's as if somebody just pulled them out of the sample sections for the PHB (or MM, depending on what character you're referring to). Maybe individual quirks will be better exhibited later on in the game? Who knows? But at its current state, that is a point of concern I have regarding the characters, as they sit. This is a feedback section, after all, and this is the feedback I am providing.



I would actually say Shadowheart has the most depth out of any of the companions. But she takes a while to open up, probably why a lot of players are missing out on her story beats. There's a lot of potential in her for a complex storyline.

As for playing an evil playthrough, yes, the devs were wanting feedback specifically on evil choices, according to them players prefer to be good and that results in less data than they'd like on evil companions and choices. https://screenrant.com/baldurs-gate-3-release-good-evil-playthrough-differences/

From what I've heard, there's 12 writers each working on a companion, 2 have 2 companions, so 14 companions in all. We got the evil/neutral characters first because in a build that includes the good companions, they would probably be left in camp and not get feedback. A dataminer's already found 3 new companions in the code.

As for your rather general feedback, I want to ask what exactly would make the story more compelling to you, or more refined? What story beats are pushing you away? How would you change the companions, or what sort of companion would you want? Not to be rude but a rather generic "The story isn't compelling" isn't very helpful feedback.


Last edited by Synaryn; 14/10/20 04:26 PM.
Joined: Oct 2020
Z
ZubDub Offline OP
stranger
OP Offline
stranger
Z
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Noraver
[quote=ZubDub]Just because a game is titled as a sequel, does not mean it's forced to stay within the confines of the previous games.
Just because it's called Baldur's Gate 3, does not mean it has to play the exact same as Baldur's Gate 2 did. All games evolve over time, some choosing entirely different styles, despite being continuations.
Pokemon, Zelda, Final Fantasy, Super Mario; All games off the top of my head that have evolved over time, despite being sequels of each other (Zelda less so, because of its timeline issues), but they've all changed.
If your argument is that "Well, the 2 and 3 are what link them and make them sequels!", then does that discredit every other game without numbers in the title, claiming every other one is just a spin-off (Even if they're directly linked story-wise)?

It is named Baldur's Gate 3 because it is associated with the previous two. Baldur's Gate 3 is still within the same universe, will have some of the same characters (Confirmed but not spoiled, as per the Devs), and the storyline follows both the tabletop campaign, and the Bhaalspawn campaign (100 years later).

The naming doesn't force it to play like the previous titles.

My point with Dark Alliance was that everyone who claims "This isn't Baldur's Gate" always leave those titles out, and you did from the get-go. It was never a naming issue before, but now it is because of a number tacked on.
But again, despite player opinion saying it's "Not Baldur's Gate", it forever will officially be "Baldur's Gate", because Wizard of the Coast said it is, despite player ignorance being their own bliss.


Changed in such a way that they drastically changed mechanics to a point of an absence of likeness in any kind of gameplay? No. Games evolve, yes, but if a game is introduced as a sequel, then it is reasonable to expect it to behave as a sequel, and not completely break away from the previous installments to such an extent that it is unrecognizable to those playing it. The association with the previous two, at this point, is only that the game itself also occurs within the Forgotten Realms campaign setting, that's it. Your point with Dark Alliance was to engage in whataboutism, as the comparison was explicitly made between Baldur's Gate III, and Baldur's Gates I and II.

Your argument, thus far, is without cause, and you are being intentionally hostile, to what end? You dislike that other plays dislike that Baldur's Gate III is a Baldur's Gate game in name alone? Fine, you disagree with somebody. You and I will not see eye-to-eye, and that's fine.

Joined: Oct 2020
stranger
Offline
stranger
Joined: Oct 2020
I think that you're being a little too harsh. I didn't play the previous Baldur’s Gate games so I can't comment on that, although since it only act 1, there might be something later in the story that will tie it to the previous games.

The characters - at least those I played with - are interesting. I like that they don't agree to tell you their whole life story immediately. You find little by little, by small things you notice over time. Some of the information might only be available if you chose a specific race, found a specific object, made love to the character, succeeded in a persuasion roll, or made decisions that the character approves. It's the same as in a real dnd game: all the characters have plot hooks that are interesting and tie them to the plot, but the main story revolves around a different common goal.

I agree that enriching the background stories will make the story better, but they are pretty good now too, especially Astarion's. I think that his story is the most prominent one. Shadowheart's story, on the other hand, is a lot subtler and you can miss it if you don't find the correct items and succeed in the checks. I think that there should be things about her that we will find out no matter what we roll or find. That said, we're only in early access so there might be more character development we aren't aware of.

Bugs aside, I like the mechanics. It's fun for me to try and sneak to high places or behind enemies to get the drop on them and get a bonus from being on higher ground. There are some things that I would change or add to, but overall it's great.

Page 1 of 2 1 2

Link Copied to Clipboard
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5