Larian Banner
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 3 of 5 1 2 3 4 5
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Savage North
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Savage North
I feel compelled to voice (albeit by writing) my utmost approval for this post, grysqrl.


Hoping we'll be able to create great assumptions-free Custom Characters and be given great roleplay options.
Joined: Oct 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2020
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.

Joined: Oct 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2020
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?

Joined: Nov 2020
A
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
A
Joined: Nov 2020
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.

Joined: Sep 2017
Location: Norway
S
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
S
Joined: Sep 2017
Location: Norway
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.

Last edited by Seraphael; 29/03/21 09:44 AM.
Joined: Mar 2021
A
stranger
Offline
stranger
A
Joined: Mar 2021
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.

Joined: Mar 2020
Location: Belfast
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Mar 2020
Location: Belfast
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.

Last edited by Wormerine; 30/03/21 02:16 PM.
Joined: Oct 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2020
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.

Joined: Oct 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2020
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.

Joined: Mar 2021
A
stranger
Offline
stranger
A
Joined: Mar 2021
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.

Last edited by Aestus_RPG; 03/04/21 10:34 PM.
Joined: Oct 2020
enthusiast
OP Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2020
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.

Last edited by mr_planescapist; 04/04/21 08:09 AM.
Joined: Mar 2020
Location: Belfast
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Mar 2020
Location: Belfast
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 ;-)

Joined: Oct 2020
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Oct 2020
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.


I don't speak english well, but I try my best. Ty
Joined: Nov 2020
addict
Online Content
addict
Joined: Nov 2020
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.

Joined: Jul 2019
enthusiast
Online Content
enthusiast
Joined: Jul 2019
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.

Last edited by Danielbda; 04/04/21 06:41 PM.
Joined: Oct 2020
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Oct 2020
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.


I don't speak english well, but I try my best. Ty
Joined: Jan 2020
member
Offline
member
Joined: Jan 2020
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.

Joined: May 2010
Location: Oxford
Duchess of Gorgombert
Offline
Duchess of Gorgombert
Joined: May 2010
Location: Oxford
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.


J'aime le fromage.
Joined: Oct 2020
R
enthusiast
Online Content
enthusiast
R
Joined: Oct 2020
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

Joined: Jan 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Jan 2020
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.

Page 3 of 5 1 2 3 4 5

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