Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - General Pathfinder Wrath of the Righteous vs BG3

Yes, and that is an issue in BG3 as well: there is not much of a "build up" leading to these enemies, e.g. a multilevel dungeon like Durlag's Tower. It is just made more visible in WotR because there are more trash mobs everywhere, and in BG3 those trash mobs consist of goblins, while in WotR they also consist of demons.

Edit: I think it is also why auntie Ethel is so memorable. Meeting her in the grove and on the road, Mayrina's quest, the sunlands / swamp, the folk in the lair with their own backstories - all this before the big fight. And you also can try to kill her before, and then the conversations change. By comparison the minotaurs: seems like they have been placed there just to attack the party.

It is all very fascinating to read, but thats just a demagogy. Facts and numbers speak the opposite, some try to sell nostalgia again and again(Obsidian\Owlcat) without huge success, while others constantly advance, create a something new(Larian) and receiving success for this.

Holy HELL the writing is TERRIBLE for evil path in Pathfinder.... I thought it was a joke first, but it's banal and downright childish. Who the hell allowed that crap to even make it past alpha stage??

(Evil) I don't like you. Die! <--- This option literally comes up all the time. What the hell???

Is BG3 really still new on a mechanical level though? One of the biggest criticisms is how uncannily close many of the mechanics and the general gameplay loop is to DOS2 in its current state. Not to mention it literally is a sequel to one of the oldest cRPG series in existence.

I mean it’s basically trying to cash in on two different kinds of nostalgia at this point. And I don’t really see a fundamental difference in the end. What is BG3 actually advancing in the genre over DOS2, besides actually having a big enough budget to have highly detailed graphics and cutscenes in the end? What you and many others accuse the other developers of doing lack the introspection to notice that Larian has seemingly taken their first steps into the same complacent pattern.

What’s new is only new once is what I’m trying to say. And I don’t really think the devs or the fans should get complacent and believe that the same formulas will work twice, even transplanted into a different series. If it works out well, then it’s all good. But no one should act like nobody could have seen it coming if certain expectations fall short of even the most ardent supporters.

Overhyping yourself is dangerous. Especially this far out from release. I have even seen some of that from WotR itself in regards to inexplicable changes for the worse in the crusade system, and by all accounts even DOS2 had regressed in certain ways between EA and full release (in particular its handling of the Bless spell, exponential armor scaling, and the sudden explosion of necrofire everywhere as soon as you hit chapter 2).

Plus by all accounts, the Pathfinder series has been a success too.

As of patch 5, you can skip the initial grove fight (unless you mean only the initial cutscene before the fight, that can be skipped with spacebar, same as other dialogues). I use a familiar to trigger that fight, since it has 1 hp and therefore is easily killed (or just remove it from the battle by resummoning it outside of the combat zone). That way the fight will play out without your party. You can go adventuring in the chapel in the meantime. Same for the druids - tiefling fight. I have not tested the goblin raid, since that would require joining with the cultists.

Alfira's scene should be made skippable (if it cannot be skipped, haven't tried), I agree.

I guess it comes down to one's expectations. Since I never had an expectation that the game would be bug-free or problem-free at launch, and also no expectation that I was going to be playing the game for at least 3 months from launch, I am not disappointed or upset or angry.

@Abits, I don't think it's about Owlcat (or most developers; there may be exceptions) abusing people or being dishonest. I just don't think anyone can make a game as complex and huge as WotR and have it NOT have a bunch of problems at launch. Even if Owlcat took another ten years on the game before launching it, there would be problems, because the devs themselves will not be in a position to catch some of these bugs and it takes thousands of people playing the game for these issues to show themselves. Also, I don't think you are foolish at all. Having been hopeful and then being disappointed are both eminently reasonable, but it does not make you foolish for having been hopeful.

@MarbleNest, I am glad you remain supportive of Owlcat. I believe they have the potential to emerge as one of the premier cRPG developers - if people are reasonable in assessing/judging them and give them a fair chance. It's the same reason I still remain active in this forum and hold hope that BG3 will eventually turn out to be a game I can enjoy at least a little bit, because I don't want to give up on a talented cRPG developer with great potential.

I'm not certain I see much merit to this concern. Throughout the history of gaming, most games simply have not reinvented the wheel, but that doesn't necessarily indicate a lack of quality. Beyond that, moving an entire genre forward is a very, very tall order, and "new" does not always equate to "fun". Making three games with the same engine is hardly stagnation, particularly when the third game involves changing the underlying rule set to the extent that the AP system of DOS1/2 is nowhere to be seen.

The hype train can't be avoided, most often leads to disappointment, and is essentially unstoppable, but for my own part I just want a D&D game made with the DOS engine. It allows for more interaction than any other CRPG engine I've seen, and captures far more of the feeling of playing a tabletop RPG as a result. Being able to cast grease on a group of enemies and have the ranger shoot down the bowl of embers hanging from the ceiling to set them alight is spot-on for how my wretched D&D group plays when I DM, and that level of environmental interaction presents a functionally endless number of options based on party composition, available items, prepared spells, and so on. I can't think of any other modern CRPG that provides that sort of "sandbox tactics" feel.

If all you're expecting is a genre-shaking change with each new game, you're setting yourself up for disappointment just as badly as the hype train passengers. Sometimes "the same, but different" is perfectly fine.

Buddy
We can get a little more specific and talk about some examples. I think mostly about the mount system and crusader system, both were implemented pretty late as part of Kickstarter campaign, and both just feel like they are not finished. It might be a little outrageous of me, but I think that of they gave them so much trouble they don't worth the investment and this is a time better spent on polishing other aspects of the game, and perhaps can be later implemented as dlcs or something.
I just don't find it fair to claim your game features mounted combat if it barely works.
And a final note about support - after all I still finished the game and enjoyed it immensely so I don't think me criticising owlcat's release policies gonna have any implications about how much I'm gonna support them in the future. I just wanted to mention I don't think they do certain things in the way I would have expected and I don't like it, but can't say it completely ruined my experience. I'll probably pre order their next game as well, even if I'm not gonna play it right away.

The mount and crusader systems are almost entirely broken and embarrassing to release in that state, yeah. But it's not even just bugs, a lot of stuff just isn't implemented. Tons of subclasses features are not actually in the game even though it shows you getting them on level up.
It's dishonest to release a game like that and not put up disclaimers about what isn't implemented

That's the gist of what's bothering me. It isn't really about bugs. But to be fair, there are so many options you can find something that works.

Yeah, I'm not expecting anything genre-shaking with BG3, I'm just calling out how toxic the discourse tends to be when people compare Larian to any other cRPG developer these days. We've all already seen the overall tendency to get weirdly hyper defensive when certain legitimate flaws are pointed out in their games, compared to everyone else treating the flaws in the other cRPGs in a matter of fact way.

Reducing the other developers' efforts to little more than trying to sell nostalgia while simultaneously praising Larian for going in a new direction is a ridiculous and laughable statement to make given everything we know about BG3, especially how readily they are willing to transplant mechanics like the origin system and the so-called 'toilet chain' from their smash success hit into a different series entirely. Having it be this obvious bothers me by sheer principle, and I say this as someone with zero attachment to the original BG games.

Either way, the point is, people need to get a grip and tone down the developer fandom rhetoric, for it does nothing but breed resentment among the wider cRPG community.

I have to agree. This is where I was very happy Larian ditched KS for BG3, and that Obsidian and inXile will also not be going to the KS well ever again. The crowd-funding approach was great several years ago when this genre of games we all here love so much was on the verge of extinction. But now it has become more problematic than beneficial, especially in the area of forcing devs to come up with cockamamey ideas and promises to bring in more funding and then not implementing/being able to impleement them well.

If "new" ideas that "advance" the genre give me D:OS2, then I will take just about anything else instead, thank you very much.

Definitely.

I think WotR is hopefully going to make enough money that I'd hope that Owlcat goes with an early access model in the next game instead. Especially because beta testers and dataminers had the capability to spoil damn near everything about the game before release. Not to mention people who would inherently pay to get into the beta are the same kind of people who are usually seasoned veterans to the genre and would straight up ignore certain legitimate flaws in their feedback, that players less familiar to the genre will run face first into.

Although I have to point out that even discussing the possibility of a third game is exciting, since most cRPG series end up stalling at the second title for whatever reason.

Ah, that makes sense. I think part of that is a result of fanatics being much more likely to gather on subreddits, forums et al to shout their highest praises. I'd like to think most people are just enjoying good games, but who knows? Larian's new direction is pretty much limited to making a licensed D&D game and using more up close and personal dialogue camera angles.

One thing I would like to point out though is that they didn't force their origin system into D&D, 5e already features backgrounds in the core rules, and they function exactly as they do in-game. Not really certain where "transplanting" the toilet chain is coming from, either; combat turns in 5e are divided into movement/action/bonus action/free action as they are in-game, there's no AP cost per individual action like DOS features. The only thing Larian modified from 5e's rules was changing around what type of action certain abilities consume.

Origin system is referring to the ability to take one of your party members and play them as if they were your main character, and we already know that there's going to be a fair amount of content gated behind this that someone playing as a custom character won't see for whatever reason, which is how it worked in D:OS2 as well. It's currently not available in BG3 but we know it's an upcoming feature.

Toilet chain system is referring to how party movement is handled, and how you have to 'break' the chain to get party members to split up without the rest of the party automatically following you (and oftentimes resulting in situations where the following party members automatically walk into hazardous terrain and such).

Both of those are basically 1:1 carryovers from DOS2.

Ohhh, okay. I don't have much of a problem with the origin thing to be honest, but pathfinding with grouping is an absolute nightmare. They both seem to be general engine features, hopefully Larian realizes now is the time for overhauls.

To belabour the random point about the Wizard's appearance just a little further... I went through like 500 classic wizards in my D&D portraits folder and there's not a single one of either gender sporting the mage's dorag. Like only Merlin in Excalibur can pull off that look lol. Same idea as the pointed hat being pretty much an Elminster Tasha exclusive, like I'd wager nobody else in Faerun is really trying to rep the Gandalf conehead look for a PC Wizard.

I think BG1/2 had a pretty good thing going despite the limitations of the sprites. The default 'unarmored' look wasn't too ostentatious, basically just a couple locked colors for the lapel and the belt, but with the PCs color choices showing through. The standard adventure/knaves robes were pretty cool, basically the same as the Archmagi robes but just adding in the cape alone instead of the cape and hood combo. It gets minus points though for color locking the trim on those.

I think adding a hood to an outfit in BG3 should be like a universal option for any character, it should just be a quick toggle by the headslot that says something like "Hooded Appearance." That way it could work with any armor set in addition to just the robes or regular clothing. A hood can be attached to a cloak, but doesn't need to be. The hood by itself looks pretty cool with any armor set. I'd also like to see a bandana that can be worn over the mouth/nose for a more ninja like or mysterious look. Again could work with any character, and just be a toggle "Masked Appearance." In a fantasy settings those two are always popular.

Pathfinder WotR kind of shows the drawbacks of having a class specific look or class armor sets, as opposed to something that the player can just create or build for themselves. I see the same thing happening in BG3, like especially for the Druid armor. For NPCs its cool to have a set look for each class type, so the player can quickly recognize what sort of enemy they're dealing with (it's a meta conceit, works well for enemies) but for PCs though I think its just better when there are more base options to choose from and a less predefined Class-look.

I miss having the color associations with the magical schools though. You know the classic black and green robed Necromancer, or Invoker with some nice red trim?

In more recent editions of D&D some character concepts that used to fall under the wizard's archetype, have maybe broken off to become distinct Classes of their own. So a Warlock/Witch type that perhaps used to fall under the black robed "Necromancer" umbrella, becomes like its own thing just with some added infernal trappings hehe. That's all well and good, but I still think its important to have like some color options for the wizarding ways. Like if I can't play as a black robed wizard for my evil playthrough, that's just kind of a bummer.

Larian still has plenty of time to up their game, but the potato sack look they got right now for Wizards is pretty lackluster. I mean we can see what Gale is actually supposed to look like from the splashscreens and the banner above, so hopefully we get some better robes coming hehe.

I like simple circlets and diadems even a mask or two for flare, but it's also pretty easy to miss the mark with those, so hiding the headslot is always a good feature. For all characters really, but especially for wizards. I'd like to be able to hide Helmets/Circlets etc separately from hiding the hood, if given a universal hooded/unhooded appearance for all characters. That would be optimal.

In theory, i think the origins are whatever. In practice, they're resource drainers. Like, why pour so much into something that 90% of the players will never get to see ('cause most people don't even finish games, let alone play them twice), while they could have just used a fragment of that time and money to better the traditional main character experience, and thus every player's experience. Especially considering that, more than likely, not every origin will be as good as the next.

I get its their system, but i think they're really overestimating how important it was to DOS2's success.

The origin system doesn't really appeal to me, but I have spoken to people who really managed to form a connection to one or another of the Origin characters in DOS 2. Anecdotal at best... but I do think some people like this. Personally I'd be fine with them scratching it though.