Larian Banner
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 9 of 13 1 2 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Joined: Jun 2020
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Jun 2020
Originally Posted by Demoulius
Problem with that is, the feedback needs to be about something for it to hold water. If all the feedback that a person has, is that its not baldurs gate because it doesent feel like baldurs gate then....uh....ok. Wtf are we supposed to do with that? What are the developers supposed to do with that?

As has been mentioned elsewhere, none of us are gate-keepers of what is legitimate or helpful feedback and what is not. A person's opinion that the game does not feel like it should, if it is to be considered as the game it is claiming to be, is feedback - and if many people share that opinion, even if they do not or cannot articulate it well, then that it very important feedback. Neither you, nor anyone else here, have any right to attack anyone else or demean their thoughts and opinions, or to attempt to act as any kind of gatekeeper about what's valid and what isn't: unless you are an actual Larian employee, you don't have that information. Beyond that, stating those thoughts and opinions is why we are all here in the first place.

Quote
But alot of it isent that. Alot of it is: its to much like divnity. And theyre saying that to the studio that made divinity. [...]

The few times people do elaborate further they bring in things that were never promised, dont make a title a baldurs gate title, cant really be narrowed down because people dont know themselves or have nothing to do with the game at all, etc etc. Mostly it comes to how their expectations havent been met somehow. Ive been playing the game since it came out, taking time off the game after playthroughs so I dont burn myself out but it seems these arguments just dont die down. They (generally) still cant narrow down what it is exactly that feels off to them and if anything, theyre just repeating themselves over and over.

I would strongly encourage you to take some time to browse the feedback section more carefully, read some of the threads, and actually take a look at the mountains, upon mountains, of serious, well-considered and analytical threads full of people discussing, in great depth and detail the aspects of this game and its design philosophy, implementation, aesthetic, functionality, style and other elements there beside which they feel do not work, are unsatisfying or detract from the game in various different ways.

Most of the highly critical posters reiterate various points in brief because they have already been discussed in great detail, and it is presumed by this point that most people participating in the conversations are up to date on this and have availed themselves of those many and varied threads before deciding to go on the offensive at others. (And honestly, because it is exhausting to have to re-write the salient points of a scholarly essay, and cover the relevant details sufficiently, again and again each time a new person pops up trying to claim that the critics are just haters with no real arguments, without having taking the time to actually look at what has been said and take it in...)

The arguments and complains continue because the issues they spring from continue, without address. There is no shortage here of threads wherein various elements of the game are picked apart with honest, detailed examination and found wanting, and the reasons why they are poor choices, bad designs, or otherwise detrimental to the game as a whole are gone into at length. Claiming that the highly critical posters never have any real arguments, and never articulate anything properly just makes you look like you're speaking with your eyes closed - either overtly disingenuous, or wilfully ignorant.

==

That said, the above exchange seems to be getting nowhere, to my eye at least, and all that's happening is that people on both sides are getting increasingly, and pointlessly, antagonistic towards each other as a result... let's try to keep this friendly and positive if we can. If you love what Larian are doing here, that's great - but that's not an excuse to shout down or shut down other people who aren't feeling as rosy as you about what they're seeing and experiencing. Remember that for the most part, everyone who is taking the time and effort to post here, on these forums, is doing so as someone who either loves this game, or who wants to love this game - those who think that it's great right now and are excited for it to succeed, or else those who very much want it to succeed and be great and want the game to be the very best it can be. We're actually, ultimately, all on the same side here - sometimes you just have to step back far enough to see it. It's worth doing, especially any time you find yourself getting into an increasingly antagonistic quote-to-quote post exchange with someone.

Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Liberec
veteran
Online Embarrased
veteran
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Liberec
Originally Posted by ArvGuy
All you're doing here is asking people who aren't sufficiently loyalist to eat shit, fuck off, and stop pestering Larian with their anti-DOS grief, if you'll pardont he directness. That's not really what I would consider proper behavior on a forum.
How kind of you to try and tell me what I'm posting. Because that's totally not jackassery or anything, is it?

Seriously tho ...
As i said abowe, i would appreciate if you would aim your focus to those topics that actualy are ment to compare BG-3 with previous titles, or are adressing specific matters that should be improved, so this game fits your expectation better ...
This particular topic is supposed to be about numbers of testers ... what does it have in common with "how much Baldur's Gate is this game" ? O_o

Originally Posted by ArvGuy
I'm just following the conversation here. I don't believe I stole the topic and I'm sure someone would tell me to stop stealing the topic if I was.
Didnt i? wink
Twice now. laugh


Short coment on my English. smile

Anyway ... i cast Eldritch Blast!
Joined: Oct 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Niara
That said, the above exchange seems to be getting nowhere, to my eye at least, and all that's happening is that people on both sides are getting increasingly, and pointlessly, antagonistic towards each other as a result... let's try to keep this friendly and positive if we can.

In the words of the wise Tarn Adams of of Bay12 fame: "Let us maintain our chill composure"

::finger guns::


Optimistically Apocalyptic
Joined: Dec 2017
F
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
F
Joined: Dec 2017
Given the popularity and critical acclaim for D:OS2, saying anything bad about it is about the same as saying anything bad about having sex.

A fringe opinion.


Larian, please improve QoL / UX.

And give us Halsin as companion, please.
Joined: Jul 2019
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Jul 2019
Originally Posted by Firesong
Given the popularity and critical acclaim for D:OS2, saying anything bad about it is about the same as saying anything bad about having sex.

A fringe opinion.
I liked DOS2 a lot, however I see no reason for DOS2 features to be in a D&D game, specially when the main criticism about the game so far has been this frankesteinian mix between the two.
Solasta proved that pure D&D plays better. It will still be made by Larian if they remove the DOS2 stuff.

Joined: Jun 2020
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Jun 2020
Yes, to Firesong, it is a rather strikingly fringe opinion - one that few people other than closed-eyed sycophants will agree with; I'm glad you're aware of that, though of course I wouldn't discourage you from stating your feelings.

Acting like D:OS2 was perfect just because it was (very) popular with a particular crowd (much of which, in the ven diagram of gamers and roleplayers everywhere, are not the same target audience as those who like story-based RPGs, D&D or Baldur's Gate) is itself deeply irrational and a stance that is, to the vast majority of sensible people, objectively false and misguided.

There was a great deal that was poorly done, badly designed, frustrating, and unsatisfying about D:OS2, all of which are things which drastically turned me, personally, off the game, and which I personally do not care to see repeated in this one when they don't need to be (I tried to conduct a second playthrough of D:OS2 after finishing the first, and I simply couldn't stomach it. I genuinely tried, but couldn't bring myself to slog through it again... Whereas, I'd very much like to be able to enjoy replaying a game called Baldur's Gate 3, in the future). That we can then see many of these things being repeated again, therefore, is cause for genuine concern for many people.

If you don't feel your personal opinion on each of those issues is properly represented, then I'd strongly encourage you to go and find the various threads where each of these things are discussed and reasoned through in great detail, have a read through them, see what you think, and then if you still feel like you have an angle that hasn't been covered, absolutely join in on those discussions.

Last edited by Niara; 09/10/21 09:44 PM.
Joined: Dec 2020
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Dec 2020
Originally Posted by Firesong
Given the popularity and critical acclaim for D:OS2, saying anything bad about it is about the same as saying anything bad about having sex.

A fringe opinion.

This is lunatic cultist way of thinking and some of you really have to listen to yourselves talk before hitting that post button. Are you guys so determined to turn Larian into the next CDPR?

No one's denying that DOS2 was a great and wildly successful game. But to deny that it had any huge flaws at all, and acting like transplanting as much of it as possible into BG3 is a great idea that can't backfire is going to lead BG3 into a very unfortunate trajectory. Do you know why 'too much like DOS2' is an actual criticism here? Maybe actually think critically for a moment and realize that IT'S PRECISELY BECAUSE ALMOST EVERYONE HERE HAS PLAYED D:OS2 FRONT TO BACK, people have lived through the flaws inherent in that game's systems, and don't want those same problems being brought over into BG3 too!

Or did everyone somehow forget how bad DOS2's endgame was when it launched, and arguably still is?

Hell, I'd be willing to bet that a good amount of people using this criticism are actually FAR more familiar with DOS2 than people making ridiculous statements like the quoted post. Like I've beaten D:OS2 on Tactician with a full party without lone wolf cheese, and even I couldn't come up with a laughable analogy comparing it to sex.

Last edited by Saito Hikari; 09/10/21 11:04 PM.
Joined: Oct 2020
D
addict
Offline
addict
D
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Danielbda
I can narrow exactly what feels off: The gameplay.
From the first gameplay reveal where Vincke gets his ass kicked and only wins the very first encounter by dipping his bow literally into fire and exploding a barrell to kill all enemies I didn't feel like that was 5E D&D.
Surface effects, shoving, jumping and disengaging as bonus actions, high ground, walking behind enemies to get backstabs. It felt like playing DOS with d20
Then grats, the comment wasent aimed at you laugh I was talking about people who have complaint but cant narrow down themselves what their complaint is, and then proceed to hurl abuse your way when you ask them to clarify. I never said it applies to ALL people who have unclear feedback. Just alot from what I can see.

Say with your list of complaints id ask what you mean with surface effects and youd spend 5 paragraphs cursing at me about how im a Larian fanboy for not agreeing with you and all of this sheit wasent in BG2 or something like that confused thats the kind of stuff im talking about...

Originally Posted by Niara
As has been mentioned elsewhere, none of us are gate-keepers of what is legitimate or helpful feedback and what is not. A person's opinion that the game does not feel like it should, if it is to be considered as the game it is claiming to be, is feedback - and if many people share that opinion, even if they do not or cannot articulate it well, then that it very important feedback. Neither you, nor anyone else here, have any right to attack anyone else or demean their thoughts and opinions, or to attempt to act as any kind of gatekeeper about what's valid and what isn't: unless you are an actual Larian employee, you don't have that information. Beyond that, stating those thoughts and opinions is why we are all here in the first place.
Id love it if people 1: Dident put words in my mouth that I dident say and 2: used words with the meaning that that is tied to them....

From quikly googling the word Gatekeeping: the activity of controlling, and usually limiting, general access to something.

In the context of this discussion im assuming you think im trying to gatekeep the feedback that gets send to Larian. Correct?

Where did I say that people cant post those comments or anything to that nature? Good luck finding it in my post because it isent there. If anything, the opposite is true. I WANT people to share their feedback. But I want them to do it in a manner that actively helps the developers improve the game. I want them to provide constructive feedback. Not just feedback. Because generic feedback contrary to what you say is infact NOT usefull in this case.

You were bringing up the point that 'maybe look at the criticisms from an objective standpoint. Because since people keep bringing them up, perhaps they actually exist for a reason?' which I find an interesting take on generic non-descriptive feedback. Which I found abit of a misleading concept to begin with. Something beeing brought up alot doesent mean its true. And for all the people that brought it up, a good portion of people dident bring it up. We dont have numbers exactly but say 1% of people feel like this. Would that warrant this feeling to be something that needs to be investigated? Would it if 50% did? Or 90%? Regardless, let me explain why I think it isent helpfull at all no matter how many people bring it up.....

Say I go to work at a place and my employer thinks im not doing my job well and can do better. Ok, thats fine. People make mistakes and im sure theres room for improvement if im just starting out there. In what area and how should I improve? Oh no particular area. Just do your job better. Do you, or do you not think that helps this situation that I just described?

Another example. Say im hired as a cook and my job is to cook steak. My employers tells me im not doing a good job but need to improve. Ok but how? Are the steaks to raw? Are they not well done when they need to be? Do I keep burning the steaks? Do I need to much time to cook the steaks properly? Am I not seasoning the steaks properly? Theres so many areas to go with this very generic feedback. Without more input other then 'you need to do better' I dont know in WHAT area I need to improve, or how to improve. If I dont know what exactly im doing wrong how do you in gods name expect me to fix it?

Add to that 100 people might offer 100 different anwsers and its (at least in my opinion) not hard to see why very generic non-descriptive feedback is getting both the players, who wnat something fixed. And the developer who wants to produce the best possible product, exactly 0 result.

For the rest of your post, I know fully well that alot of people ARE providing very solid feedback. Im very happy with that! But theyre also not the ones coming to threats to complain about completly different topics then the threads that they are visiting. They are for a lack of a better term 'not causing a fuss' and my comment wasent directed at them. And the fact that my words get twisted to paint some narative that im painting everyone with the same brush and am some tyrant that wants everyone to only read the feedback that I approve of is, in your own words 'either overtly disingenuous, or wilfully ignorant.'

The past 15 replies were indeed getting nowhere. And maybe its time people learn to do what (at least in my youth) was very normal and actually a sign of beeing an adult. Agree to disagree and move on. People are allowed to disagree on things and like you said; we all want the game to be the best that it can be. Maybe things arent getting fixed because Larian is working on it, and need more time. Maybe its not getting fixed because it goes against their vision and theyre ok with it. Maybe its not fixed yet for a meriad of other reasons. Maybe it is fixed and we will see it in patch 6? Who knows! I see no point in lingering on the forums for months and brining up your gripe with the game by invading tons of threads because it isent getting fixed fast enough in your opinion. Thats not healthy behaviour either. Take a step back. Relax abit. Its a game. We all want it to be the best thing since sliced bread. But some things are seriously not worth raising your blood pressure to such levels.

Joined: Oct 2021
member
Offline
member
Joined: Oct 2021
Originally Posted by spacehamster95
Combat system? DnD 5e with still adjusting the perks of the system.
User interface? Originally similar to their DO titles, now distinctively BG3
Party size? DnD 5e
Party management system? Greatly readjusted in the last Patch.

It's supposed to be Baldur's Gate III, not the definitive adaptation of Dungeons & Dragons.

As for the user interface and party management system, they're still closer to the Original Sin games than to the Baldur's Gate games.
In some ways, that's good, but in others it isn't, and they're still unlike Baldur's Gate.

Originally Posted by spacehamster95
Lack of a day/night cycle? Dragon Age Origins also miss out on this one for the same reason. They would have to re-shoot all of the campsite cinematics. Also the game has a concealment system that would have to be recreated entirely with a day/night cycle. I am fine with the current set up. Day=adventuring, night= party banter.

I finished Dragon Age: Origins, but I don't remember a lot of it, so I'm not sure what you mean.
If you're trying to say that it would be daytime while they happen, that isn't true.

About the concealment system, if you mean how lighting is part of the stealth mechanics, I don't see any reason why that system would have to be recreated.

Originally Posted by spacehamster95
A lot of interactive objects? I would say intractability is one of the great strengths of BG3, compared to for instance Solasta where everything feels stale and static.

I would agree.
The degree of interactivity is one of the elements from Original Sin that Baldur's Gate would benefit from.
Likewise for environmental effects.

Originally Posted by spacehamster95
Story structure? Like the three part story structure that is universal to western storytelling?

Not just the separation of the story into parts, but...
The beginning part where the player and other party members are prisoners on a ship that gets destroyed.
The player and party members being scattered afterwards and saved by a mysterious force.
The player ending up on a beach after the ship is destroyed.
The conflict between a corrupt leader and others in the first act.
The search for ways to remove the collars/remove the parasites and leave the area.
And apparently...
The permanent loss of party members who aren't with the player at some point around the first and second acts.
There are also other parallels.

Originally Posted by spacehamster95
Party member names? Bullshit...
Party member personalities? See my previous point.

The names from Larian seem to focus more on words and actual variants of names.

Regarding personalities, I haven't seen much about the party members (and Shadowheart, Lae'zel and Wyll are my main party members at the moment), but from what I have seen, they seem like remixed versions of the Original Sin II party members (from what I can remember of them at least).

Right now, I'd say that:

Astarion:
Backstory elements - Sebille
Personality - ...

Shadowheart:
Backstory elements - Lohse
Personality - Ifan

Gale:
Backstory elements - Fane
Personality - ...

Lae'zel:
Backstory elements - ...
Personality - The Red Prince

Wyll:
Backstory elements - The Red Prince
Personality - Lohse

Originally Posted by spacehamster95
Yes, Larian is not copying a game from before the turn of the millenium, that's true. They are adapting DnD 5e into a pc game that has strong narrative ties to the BG saga.

But, honestly, your argument that everything would be solved if they abandoned their turn-based design, it is just laughable, I mean What???? DnD is a turn-based system. They cannot implement it without their turn-based design. This is a tired argument. BG3 is a turn-based game, as it is an adaptation of a turn-based ttrpg. Deal it with already.

If it's an adaptation of Dungeons & Dragons rather than a new Baldur's Gate game and must be turn-based because of that (I doubt it), then they shouldn't call it "Baldur's Gate III", just like they didn't call the turn-based spin-offs of Divinity "Divinity III-V" but "Divinity: Original Sin I&II", and like the action spin-offs of Baldur's Gate weren't called "Baldur's Gate III&IV" but "Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance I&II", which showed that they were spin-offs.

Originally Posted by spacehamster95
Originally Posted by ArvGuy
Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD
There is only one thing i can say to people who keep repeating that this is Original Sin 3 ...
Maybe, just maybe ... you should have listen to Swen, when he specificaly warned us about: if you are not quite sure, if this game will be for you, you should not buy it right from the start, but wait for some reviews first.
You can only blame yourself and your own inpatience. -_-
People are trying to tell Larian that their game isn't pushing the right buttons to really feel like a sequel to two legendary games whose name this game is borrowing, and you feel it makes sense to tell them essentially to fuck off with their perspective? To got eat a can of shit for expecting a BG franchise game to push the old BG buttons?

What's the point of that? What do you hope to achieve, aside from just annoying people?

They don't need your consent personally to create a sequal for the BG saga. They needed WotC's and they got the green light after their pitch with them. I am a fan of the original saga and I love what Larian has been creating so far. I don't want a slavish and uninspired clone of the old games. I want a rpg that could mean as much to a modern generation of players as the original saga meant back then. I want a pc experience that mirrors the joy of playing DnD with my mates. And so far it seems Larian will deliver that...

In other words, you don't want another Baldur's Gate game.
You want a faithful adaptation of Dungeons & Dragons.
In which case, as I said, Baldur's Gate III should be called "Baldur's Gate: Dungeons & Dragons", "Dungeons & Dragons: Baldur's Gate" or something like that.

As for not needing consent from the fans of the series, that's true, but it's not really nice to take an established series and basically turn it into a different series.
That said, I don't really mind that much since Original Sin isn't a bad series.
I'm more upset about the role-playing aspects of The Elder Scrolls and Fallout being simplified with each game, but that's neither here nor there.
I just hope that they'll fix and add more things to Baldur's Gate III.

Originally Posted by Firesong
BG + BG2 were cool relative to their time and age. I loved them, too, but they are not state of the art anymore.

Technology and game design have evolved since then, this also includes (of course) the things developers can do when implementing game mechanics.

I have played BG2 for a while again during the last few days - and I honestly have to say: the magic is gone. BG2 feels clunky, unpolished, unwelcoming - but this is seen from the perspective of a post D:OS2-gamer, of course.

What I'm trying to say: being stuck in the past and wanting things to stay the same forever doesn't work. I see BG3, since we have good dice rolling (weighted dice, ability to improve dice roll outcomes) which enables player agency instead of having your story dictated by RNG, as it was at the start of EA, as a culmination, or a "best of", between D&D and the advances video game science and technology have made since BG2 came out.

And no, neither Solasta nor WotR are really good comparisons, both are, in comparison with BG3 even as it is now in EA, very "unpolished", with Solasta feeling more like a "tabletop simulator" instead of an actual, deep, AAA-level computer game.

Yes, both are really good games, but they are not even in the same ballpark, production-value and game-design wise, as BG3.

And also, yes, I agree that BG3 is not unsimilar to D:OS2 - but in my most honest opinion this is a good thing. D:OS2 is still one of the best video game RPGs that were ever produced. Modern and still a somewhat "old school" RPG.

Honestly, D&D rules are good as a guideline and general idea, but they don't make a AAA level video game. It's just too bland when playing alone, much more spice is needed, which Larian adds by utilizing the virtues already implemented in D:OS2 and then some.

Also, coming back to D:OS2 once again: this game was groundbreaking. In my opinion D:OS2 actually reshaped the meaning of the term "CRPG", because it really brought together the best of both worlds: CRPG gameplay on one hand, the possibilities of video games in the 21st century on the other hand. It is a game that welcomes even people who are usually put off by the stoutness of what "CRPG" meant in the past, which is also a good thing. Still it's not "toned down" or "dumbed down", quite the opposite. It just leaves out the artificial elitism which only serves as a "gatekeeper".

I haven't played Solasta or Pathfinder, so the quality of those games isn't known to me, but I wouldn't exactly call Baldur's Gate III polished at the moment.

As to Baldur's Gate I&II, they're obviously not going to be state-of-the-art by modern standards.
Many of the games from that time are now seen as clunky, unpolished and unwelcoming.
However, that doesn't mean that a modern take on the series would be as clunky, unpolished and unwelcoming.

I'd think that people who like turn-based games would understand that, considering that there have been many people who have called turn-based systems boring, outdated and unwelcoming and have said that those who want long-running series to still have turn-based systems are stuck in the past, but it seems that a lot of people don't know or remember that.

Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD
There is only one thing i can say to people who keep repeating that this is Original Sin 3 ...
Maybe, just maybe ... you should have listen to Swen, when he specificaly warned us about: if you are not quite sure, if this game will be for you, you should not buy it right from the start, but wait for some reviews first.
You can only blame yourself and your own inpatience. -_-

Even if people say that the game is Original Sin III, it doesn't mean that those who are saying that didn't know that the game would be like that before they bought it, or that they don't like the Original Sin series.

Last edited by EliasIncarnation; 10/10/21 05:12 AM.
Joined: Jun 2020
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Jun 2020
Originally Posted by Demoulius
In the context of this discussion im assuming you think im trying to gatekeep the feedback that gets send to Larian. Correct?

Telling other people that their feedback is not valid is not okay. You did this. I'd appreciate it, personally, if neither you, nor anyone else, did that. That's all. I apologise if you felt personally attacked - I quoted you primarily, but the remark was intended to be phased in an open way to anyone reading as well, not just you specifically.

Quote
Another example. Say im hired as a cook and my job is to cook steak. My employers tells me im not doing a good job but need to improve. Ok but how? Are the steaks to raw? Are they not well done when they need to be? Do I keep burning the steaks? Do I need to much time to cook the steaks properly? Am I not seasoning the steaks properly? Theres so many areas to go with this very generic feedback. Without more input other then 'you need to do better' I dont know in WHAT area I need to improve, or how to improve. If I dont know what exactly im doing wrong how do you in gods name expect me to fix it?

Add to that 100 people might offer 100 different anwsers and its (at least in my opinion) not hard to see why very generic non-descriptive feedback is getting both the players, who wnat something fixed. And the developer who wants to produce the best possible product, exactly 0 result.

I'll try to explain it to you, if you're interested (if not feel free to skip over):

If you are the steak chef of a restaurant, and one day someone tells your boss that they thought the steaks were bad but doesn't, or can't, give any greater detail, that's one point of data. It means very little on its own, practically nothing, because it is one point of data. There are countless ways it could have come about, only a very minuscule percentage of which could actually point to there being a problem with the chef's work. Even if that person, instead of saying the steaks are bad, wrote an essay with detailed bullet points about why they found the steak unsatisfying, and spelled out their thoughts and opinions about every aspect of the cooking process... it's still only one point of data, and it still means virtually nothing on its own; again, there are countless reasons for how and why the reviewer came to the point of writing that review - only some of which may point to there actually being a problem with the steak, especially if there are few or no other complaints.

If, however, on another day, another person reports that the steaks are bad, and on another day, a dozen more people say the steaks are bad, and then more, and still more, and still more, all leave their comments to say that the steaks are bad... then that IS useful feedback. It tells you that there is, indeed, something that should be looked into and addressed, in a way that a single point of data, no matter how complex and in depth it may be, does not. It confirms that there is a problem that resources need to be devoted to fixing; there is no longer a plausibility of it being just a bad day for the chef, or just a bad day for the reviewer, or any other small one-time anomaly... At that point you can look into WHY people are coming to that conclusion, and you can examine the reports for more detailed feedback, or seek more detailed feedback, and you can examine the situation yourself and see if you can pin down the core reasons that are leading to this dissatisfaction... but you wouldn't be doing that without that initial confirmation that there was, indeed, an issue that many people all felt.

You can try to say that each of those individual reports that just say "it's bad", and little else, aren't helpful or useful but the simple fact is they are: they are serving a valid and valuable purpose in the process

So again - even if it is lacking in detail or specificity, please don't try to tell anyone else that their feedback is not valid or useful because it is vague. None of us are in any position to tell anyone else what feedback has merit and what doesn't, or how much of some feedback is enough; I don't, you don't, no-one here does. I agree with you that it's good to encourage people to give as much detail about their impression as they can, and be as directly helpful as they can, but that is what we should be doing: encouraging, not railing at vague ill-defined groups of people for giving 'unhelpful' feedback.

Quote
And the fact that my words get twisted to paint some narative that im painting everyone with the same brush and am some tyrant that wants everyone to only read the feedback that I approve of is, in your own words 'either overtly disingenuous, or wilfully ignorant.'

So you understand, this is why it looks like you were saying that to some people:

Quote
[...] Alot of it is: its to much like divnity. And theyre saying that to the studio that made divinity. The engine used is called the divinity engine... (IIRC anyway) Dont know about you but I dont really think thats helpfull feedback. At all.

The few times people do elaborate further they bring in things that were never promised, dont make a title a baldurs gate title, cant really be narrowed down because people dont know themselves or have nothing to do with the game at all, etc etc. Mostly it comes to how their expectations havent been met somehow. [...] They (generally) still cant narrow down what it is exactly that feels off to them and if anything, theyre just repeating themselves over and over. People also get defensive or offensive to others if they ask them to explain, leading to things kike you bring up.

Your choice of phrasing here reads as though you are, quite genuinely, saying that Most of the time, critical feedback offered is vague and lacking in detail, without anything tangible to take on board or respond to... it reads further that you are saying that, while Most of the critical feedback is like that, Even When it's not, and people do elaborate further, Those accounts end up being based on falsehoods, or else have nothing to do with the game.

You don't allow, in your words, for the suggestion that there is actually a lot of good critical feedback provided; you use fully encompassing terms, with no room for anything else in your description. That is what you wrote, and it comes off as you saying, without any middle ground or alternative, that all negative feedback being offered here is either vague or unfounded, and that all of it is, thereby invalid. Those of us who have put a lot of work into providing detailed and focused feedback over the course of the EA might understandably feel the need to object to such a statement - you can't really say you weren't talking to us because, by your wording, whether you intended it that way or not, you ended up doing so.

This isn't an attack, and I've no ill-will here... it's just intended as an explanation for why myself or others seem to have read that as being your opinion, or why it came off that way by the end of the post.

Joined: Jun 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Jun 2020
As I said before, the original BG saga's fundamental design philosophy was to recreate DnD within the framework of a video game. BG3 has the same spirit. That makes it a Baldurs Gate game above all else for me.

About the companions, sorry mate, but that just makes no sense. Because Wyll mentions a devil that must mean they copied the Red Prince's backstory? U are serious? They are nothing alike, Wyll and the Red Prince storywise. I don't even understand how can one make that claim. This is what I mean when I say that these "criticisms" are divorced from reality...

Joined: Oct 2021
member
Offline
member
Joined: Oct 2021
Originally Posted by spacehamster95
As I said before, the original BG saga's fundamental design philosophy was to recreate DnD within the framework of a video game. BG3 has the same spirit. That makes it a Baldurs Gate game above all else for me.

There have been quite a few developers who tried to recreate Dungeons & Dragons in a video game, before and after Baldur's Gate.
That doesn't make them Baldur's Gate games but Dungeons & Dragon games.

Also, regardless of what might have been meant to be done with Baldur's Gate originally (I can't find any source for your comment about BioWare being forced to create a Diablo clone, though I wouldn't doubt it much), the games that were made were liked for being as they were, not for what they might have been or were supposed to be.
If the games had been turn-based, they might not have even been as well-known as they are now.

Originally Posted by spacehamster95
About the companions, sorry mate, but that just makes no sense. Because Wyll mentions a devil that must mean they copied the Red Prince's backstory? U are serious? They are nothing alike, Wyll and the Red Prince storywise. I don't even understand how can one make that claim. This is what I mean when I say that these "criticisms" are divorced from reality...

I'm just saying that they are going with similar elements.
Wyll is a noble who is known for fighting, and he made a pact with a devil.
The Red Prince is a prince who is known for fighting, and he summoned demons.

Last edited by EliasIncarnation; 10/10/21 06:22 AM.
Joined: Jun 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Jun 2020
Originally Posted by EliasIncarnation
Originally Posted by spacehamster95
As I said before, the original BG saga's fundamental design philosophy was to recreate DnD within the framework of a video game. BG3 has the same spirit. That makes it a Baldurs Gate game above all else for me.

There have been quite a few developers who tried to recreate Dungeons & Dragons in a video game, before and after Baldur's Gate.
That doesn't make them Baldur's Gate games but Dungeons & Dragon games.

Also, regardless of what might have been meant to be done with Baldur's Gate originally (I can't find any source for your comment about BioWare being forced to create a Diablo clone, though I wouldn't doubt it much), the games that were made were liked for being as they were, not for what they might have been or were supposed to be.
If the games had been turn-based, they might not have even been as well-known as they are now.

Originally Posted by spacehamster95
About the companions, sorry mate, but that just makes no sense. Because Wyll mentions a devil that must mean they copied the Red Prince's backstory? U are serious? They are nothing alike, Wyll and the Red Prince storywise. I don't even understand how can one make that claim. This is what I mean when I say that these "criticisms" are divorced from reality...

I'm just saying that they are going with similar elements.
Wyll is a noble who is known for fighting, and he made a pact with a devil.
The Red Prince is a prince who is known for fighting, and he summoned demons.

I start with the companion stuff. No, you were saying they copied the backstory. And Wyll was not a noble who is known for fighting who made a pact with a devil.
He was a spoiled painfully mediocre brat who made a pact with a devil to become someone. He is fundamentally a conman. The Red Prince is a progeny, who was destined for greatness in a sense and messed around with demons for fun.
Those surface level similarities that you highlight def do not mean that Larian simply copypasted the backstory. Just one example though. So your argument there is very arbitrary.

If you want to know some basic info about the creation of the original saga, I can recommend the youtuber Chris Davis is making an excellent series analysing crpgs and he has an episode on all of the saga entries (he is really good, does excellent research).

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCgnPgGFT3fRVkXKL59iFDzQ

Last edited by spacehamster95; 10/10/21 06:31 AM.
Joined: Oct 2020
D
addict
Offline
addict
D
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Niara
Telling other people that their feedback is not valid is not okay. You did this. I'd appreciate it, personally, if neither you, nor anyone else, did that. That's all. I apologise if you felt personally attacked - I quoted you primarily, but the remark was intended to be phased in an open way to anyone reading as well, not just you specifically.
I never said that peoples feedback isent valid. I said it isent helpful if its overly generic. But can understand that it might come across like that. English isent my main language and maybe not for everyone involved here, but I can come across as rude or direct at times. Im Dutch and people often misunderstand directness or however its called for beeing rude or commanding. Maybe that shines through a little to my English as well, il try to keep that in mind. Il try to rephrase what I mean and hope it comes across better that way. I dont feel personally attacked by you though, no need to apolagize smile

There is merit in providing feedback, even if it is non-constructive; but only up and til a point.

If plenty of people (like in the example of the cook we use) complain about something then you might narrow down where the problem lies. Were the steaks just not good? Was the cooking method not done properly? Was the sauce not good? Were they expecting well done and got medium? etc. It does help to a sense. However in our cook example its narrowed down to something. In this example a steak. Say the steak is the UI in bg3. Great! The devs can work with that! Say the Steak is the overall game though. In that case it doesent narrow it down at all and theyre back to square 1 to look for where the problem lies. Say that each person that complained about the Steak complained about something different beeing wrong ontop of that, and you are again back to square 1. Infacts its worse, they all say something is wrong but theyre all saying different things... Each time something went wrong with the steak but no 1 person complained about the same thing.

And thats what im trying to say here. I know alot of people wrote very detailed revieuws and/or feedback points. Thats great! After my 1st playthrough I wrote a lengthy post here myself! However theres also alot of people who arent doing that and thats what I was commenting on.

Quote
Your choice of phrasing here reads as though you are, quite genuinely, saying that Most of the time, critical feedback offered is vague and lacking in detail, without anything tangible to take on board or respond to... it reads further that you are saying that, while Most of the critical feedback is like that, Even When it's not, and people do elaborate further, Those accounts end up being based on falsehoods, or else have nothing to do with the game.

You don't allow, in your words, for the suggestion that there is actually a lot of good critical feedback provided; you use fully encompassing terms, with no room for anything else in your description. That is what you wrote, and it comes off as you saying, without any middle ground or alternative, that all negative feedback being offered here is either vague or unfounded, and that all of it is, thereby invalid. Those of us who have put a lot of work into providing detailed and focused feedback over the course of the EA might understandably feel the need to object to such a statement - you can't really say you weren't talking to us because, by your wording, whether you intended it that way or not, you ended up doing so.

This isn't an attack, and I've no ill-will here... it's just intended as an explanation for why myself or others seem to have read that as being your opinion, or why it came off that way by the end of the post.
Dont worry I dont see it as an attack smile im not talking about everyone there. Infact at several points in my post I say im talking about a fringe group that does this. Not everyone. If I were talking about everyone id say everyone. If im talking about what a group of people are doing im also generalizing. Maybe not helpfull at the time but thats what I was doing. The group of people that I see doing it probably arent all the same ones every single time either.

Im talking about how people are providing, in my opinon non-constructive feedback; and how I think that isent helpfull. Im not saying it isent helpfull. Just how I perceive it. But people telling me to kiss my own backside (for example, wont repeat the things people have said to me, lol) when I ask them to clarify what they mean isent beeing helpfull of them either. Were all on the forums to help improve the game right? Otherwise we wouldnt be here. People asking for clarification is something to be expected I feel. If your peers cant make sense of what you are saying theres a good chance that Larian cant either. But attacking others (not you, the people who I was commenting on) because youre asked to clarify is weird in the sense of what these message boards are about.

Joined: Oct 2021
member
Offline
member
Joined: Oct 2021
Originally Posted by spacehamster95
Originally Posted by EliasIncarnation
Originally Posted by spacehamster95
As I said before, the original BG saga's fundamental design philosophy was to recreate DnD within the framework of a video game. BG3 has the same spirit. That makes it a Baldurs Gate game above all else for me.

There have been quite a few developers who tried to recreate Dungeons & Dragons in a video game, before and after Baldur's Gate.
That doesn't make them Baldur's Gate games but Dungeons & Dragon games.

Also, regardless of what might have been meant to be done with Baldur's Gate originally (I can't find any source for your comment about BioWare being forced to create a Diablo clone, though I wouldn't doubt it much), the games that were made were liked for being as they were, not for what they might have been or were supposed to be.
If the games had been turn-based, they might not have even been as well-known as they are now.

Originally Posted by spacehamster95
About the companions, sorry mate, but that just makes no sense. Because Wyll mentions a devil that must mean they copied the Red Prince's backstory? U are serious? They are nothing alike, Wyll and the Red Prince storywise. I don't even understand how can one make that claim. This is what I mean when I say that these "criticisms" are divorced from reality...

I'm just saying that they are going with similar elements.
Wyll is a noble who is known for fighting, and he made a pact with a devil.
The Red Prince is a prince who is known for fighting, and he summoned demons.

I start with the companion stuff. No, you were saying they copied the backstory. And Wyll was not a noble who is known for fighting who made a pact with a devil.
He was a spoiled painfully mediocre brat who made a pact with a devil to become someone. He is fundamentally a conman. The Red Prince is a progeny, who was destined for greatness in a sense and messed around with demons for fun.
Those surface level similarities that you highlight def do not mean that Larian simply copypasted the backstory. Just one example though. So your argument there is very arbitrary.

I didn't know about...
Wyll lying
...as I haven't gotten that far, but I never said that Larian simply copy-pasted the backstories.
When I mentioned backstories, I even said "backstory elements", and if I hadn't, that should've still been obvious, considering that I had placed party member names on the list right before personalities.

Originally Posted by spacehamster95
If you want to know some basic info about the creation of the original saga, I can recommend the youtuber Chris Davis is making an excellent series analysing crpgs and he has an episode on all of the saga entries (he is really good, does excellent research).

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCgnPgGFT3fRVkXKL59iFDzQ

I watched about seven minutes of the Baldur's Gate retrospective video, but I can't sit through an hour of someone talking about Baldur's Gate or anything else.
Anyway, I didn't hear anything about Baldur's Gate being real-time with pause because of Interplay wanting BioWare to make a Diablo clone.
Rather, what I heard was that BioWare was creating "Battleground Infinity", which was going to be like an MMO, but when Interplay acquired the license for Dungeons & Dragons, BioWare ended up making the game singleplayer, adding the AD&D 2e rules to the combat, setting the game in the Forgotten Realms and changing its name to "Baldur's Gate".

Last edited by EliasIncarnation; 10/10/21 07:54 AM.
Joined: Jun 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Jun 2020
Originally Posted by EliasIncarnation
Originally Posted by spacehamster95
Originally Posted by EliasIncarnation
Originally Posted by spacehamster95
As I said before, the original BG saga's fundamental design philosophy was to recreate DnD within the framework of a video game. BG3 has the same spirit. That makes it a Baldurs Gate game above all else for me.

There have been quite a few developers who tried to recreate Dungeons & Dragons in a video game, before and after Baldur's Gate.
That doesn't make them Baldur's Gate games but Dungeons & Dragon games.

Also, regardless of what might have been meant to be done with Baldur's Gate originally (I can't find any source for your comment about BioWare being forced to create a Diablo clone, though I wouldn't doubt it much), the games that were made were liked for being as they were, not for what they might have been or were supposed to be.
If the games had been turn-based, they might not have even been as well-known as they are now.

Originally Posted by spacehamster95
About the companions, sorry mate, but that just makes no sense. Because Wyll mentions a devil that must mean they copied the Red Prince's backstory? U are serious? They are nothing alike, Wyll and the Red Prince storywise. I don't even understand how can one make that claim. This is what I mean when I say that these "criticisms" are divorced from reality...

I'm just saying that they are going with similar elements.
Wyll is a noble who is known for fighting, and he made a pact with a devil.
The Red Prince is a prince who is known for fighting, and he summoned demons.

I start with the companion stuff. No, you were saying they copied the backstory. And Wyll was not a noble who is known for fighting who made a pact with a devil.
He was a spoiled painfully mediocre brat who made a pact with a devil to become someone. He is fundamentally a conman. The Red Prince is a progeny, who was destined for greatness in a sense and messed around with demons for fun.
Those surface level similarities that you highlight def do not mean that Larian simply copypasted the backstory. Just one example though. So your argument there is very arbitrary.

I didn't know about...
Wyll lying
...as I haven't gotten that far, but I never said that Larian simply copy-pasted the backstories.
When I mentioned backstories, I even said "backstory elements", and if I hadn't, that should've still been obvious, considering that I had placed party member names on the list right before personalities.

Originally Posted by spacehamster95
If you want to know some basic info about the creation of the original saga, I can recommend the youtuber Chris Davis is making an excellent series analysing crpgs and he has an episode on all of the saga entries (he is really good, does excellent research).

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCgnPgGFT3fRVkXKL59iFDzQ

I watched about seven minutes of the Baldur's Gate retrospective video, but I can't sit through an hour of someone talking about Baldur's Gate or anything else.
Anyway, I didn't hear anything about Baldur's Gate being real-time with pause because of Interplay wanting BioWare to make a Diablo clone.
Rather, what I heard was that BioWare was creating "Battleground Infinity", which was going to be like an MMO, but when Interplay acquired the license for Dungeons & Dragons, BioWare ended up making the game singleplayer, adding the AD&D 2e rules to the combat, setting the game in the Forgotten Realms and changing its name to "Baldur's Gate".

I mean I cannot really discuss the video with you if you are not willing to watch it (though I understand if you are not a fan of the longer video essay format).

Joined: Feb 2020
Location: Belgium
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Feb 2020
Location: Belgium
Originally Posted by spacehamster95
I start with the companion stuff. No, you were saying they copied the backstory. And Wyll was not a noble who is known for fighting who made a pact with a devil.
He was a spoiled painfully mediocre brat who made a pact with a devil to become someone. He is fundamentally a conman. The Red Prince is a progeny, who was destined for greatness in a sense and messed around with demons for fun.
Those surface level similarities that you highlight def do not mean that Larian simply copypasted the backstory. Just one example though. So your argument there is very arbitrary.

If you want to know some basic info about the creation of the original saga, I can recommend the youtuber Chris Davis is making an excellent series analysing crpgs and he has an episode on all of the saga entries (he is really good, does excellent research).

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCgnPgGFT3fRVkXKL59iFDzQ

Thanks for these video. It looks very interresting.
I really love the firsts lines of the third video : new RPGs = grind loots + skill trees + a lot of incoherence in the story.

I don't have much time now but I'll watch them.

Last edited by Maximuuus; 10/10/21 09:38 AM.
Joined: Oct 2021
member
Offline
member
Joined: Oct 2021
Originally Posted by spacehamster95
I mean I cannot really discuss the video with you if you are not willing to watch it (though I understand if you are not a fan of the longer video essay format).

It's not exactly that I'm not willing to watch it.
I just have a difficult time watching long videos.

Last edited by EliasIncarnation; 10/10/21 09:54 AM.
Joined: Jun 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Jun 2020
Originally Posted by EliasIncarnation
Originally Posted by spacehamster95
I mean I cannot really discuss the video with you if you are not willing to watch it (though I understand if you are not a fan of the longer video essay format).

It's not exactly that I'm not willing to watch it.
I just have a difficult time watching long videos.

I get that. I usually watch these long-winded video essays when I am cooking or doing house chores, as background noise.

Joined: Mar 2020
Location: Belfast
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Mar 2020
Location: Belfast
Originally Posted by EliasIncarnation
Anyway, I didn't hear anything about Baldur's Gate being real-time with pause because of Interplay wanting BioWare to make a Diablo clone.
Rather, what I heard was that BioWare was creating "Battleground Infinity", which was going to be like an MMO, but when Interplay acquired the license for Dungeons & Dragons, BioWare ended up making the game singleplayer, adding the AD&D 2e rules to the combat, setting the game in the Forgotten Realms and changing its name to "Baldur's Gate".
I will look into the channel later, but what Bioware initially might/might have not intended is rather irrelevant - as it is not what they ended up doing. Ideas and goals in game development get changed and discarted all the time. Mass Effect1 would be a far different title if it was what was originally intended. When new devs tried to immitate unreasonable ambition of OG Mass Effect1 idea, the result was mediocare Andromeda. Baldur's Gates were made and had a big impact, gathered a fanbase, and left a legacy. One would hope if anyones has guts to made a sequel they would try to respect that legacy, even if it wouldn't in 100% fulfill fan's unreasonable expectations (like new Deus Ex games).

Larian has no interest in making a BG game. It's that simple. They already did their RPG, and it was successful and they continue to expand on that. One can point to many things that are different in BG3, and while one can find excuses, at the core it is this: Larian doesn't want to make a game like that and WotC don't want them to either. Luckily for me, BG3 has so little to do with BG1&2 I don't even see them as same series by that point. I am somewhat teriffied now of old characters like Minsc or Jaheira appearing. The less BG3 reminds me of the old games, the better.

Page 9 of 13 1 2 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

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