Larian Banner
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 1 of 11 1 2 3 10 11
Joined: Oct 2020
M
stranger
OP Offline
stranger
M
Joined: Oct 2020
Having put twenty-five hours of playtime into the early access version of Baldur's Gate 3, I've hit the point where I feel like I have a firm opinion on the game as it stands. Overall, I think it's going to be a great RPG when it's complete. However, I feel like there are issues with it that are going to cause problems down the line unless they are rectified. For context, I'm a huge fan of the Baldur's Gate series and enjoyed Divinity: Original Sin 2.

I'll start with the positives.

The story begins well and has a wonderful opening hook: you've been captured by psychic monsters who put something in your head - escape! Then you end up in a few alliances of convenience with prickly guys and girls and things go from there. Everything with the Grove and the Goblin Camp is great, and it leaves me wondering where everything is going to go next.

I'm a big fan of the party members, too. They all feel like people who've been abducted and abused and have been thrust together with a bunch of random people whom they must rely upon to survive. They're not the usual Bioware heroic fare, and I think that's a good thing. I'm very interested in learning more about them and seeing where their stories go. People are judging them too harshly. Perhaps people don't remember the early bit in Divinity: Original Sin 2 where the Red Prince tries to make you into a slave, for example.

'All the characters are evil' is a fandom meme. Like all fandom memes, it's not really true. Gale and Wyll are both decent people, although the former is secretive and it appears the latter made a deal he regrets. Both of them have approval ups when you help people, pet dogs, and so on. Lae'zel isn't evil either - she's got a goal-focused mindset (with the goal being 'get this psychic monster out of my brain.') Astarion is the closest thing to a typically evil party member, and is pretty much the only one who approves of you doing heinous things. But it only makes it more obvious that he stands out compared to the others.

Oh, Shadowheart? Honestly, I can't stand her voice acting and don't have much of an opinion on her yet. But she doesn't seem evil, just kind of rude and haughty.

I think people will have to get used to this bunch. I'm not convinced there'll be many more companions, if there's any at all. Consider that D:OS2 had you meet everyone initially, much like BG3 has done. Unless Larian has been running an extremely long game of only previewing the party members they'd show off in EA, I wouldn't hold out hope for another four or five party members. I feel like we might get one or two, but I don't think we'll get one for each class, nor get more than one for any class.

I'll take a few moments to go on a bit of a tangent here. People are going to say, well, Baldur's Gate 1 and 2 had way more characters. Yes, they did. But Baldur's Gate 1's cast were basically blank slates with names and some flavor lines - the expectation was that they'd die and you'd cycle them out without fanfare. Baldur's Gate 2 had a smaller cast with more detail, but even then I think it's safe to say that most players used a lot of the same characters and that, outside of specific gimmick runs, the majority of the cast was not utilized. Without even going into the production side of things like detail, the evolution of expectations, and so on.

The sound design, music, voice acting, and so on is all fine. I even like the chargen 'down by the river' song. The voices are all solid enough, but I don't think I'll ever warm up to Shadowheart. She just sounds like a high school kid.

Chargen is great and while more options would be appreciated, what's there is really good. I didn't have a problem making a range of characters with a range of ethnicities and looks.

The gameplay is about what I expected and wanted. I appreciate that it continues the trend of D:OS2 of allowing you creative solutions to problems, such as employing Suitably Ludicrous numbers of explosive barrels and so on. However, I think the overall gameplay is weaker than D:OS2 - but more on that on a moment.

So, here it is: the biggest issue facing Baldur's Gate 3 is that it is tied to a tabletop system. And this is an issue. Dungeons and Dragons 5e is a system designed to be used in a fairly collaborative, friendly manner between humans. On one side, you have humans playing the party and, on the other, one person playing the world (and making sure it all runs smoothly.) Just about every complaint/issue that it looks like BG3 is running into comes from the fact the system is a heartless algorithm being run by a computer with pre-determined outcomes. When you get right down to it, the reason a lot of fans are complaining is that there's no friendly DM to nudge the nice, bend the rules, and so on. Very few people actually play Dungeons and Dragons in the 'hardcore' manner that BG3 depicts it.

(Actually, the biggest issue is probably calling it Baldur's Gate 3 when the story of CHARNAME wrapped up in Throne of Bhaal and there's been twenty years of Dungeons and Dragons lore and products since then but I don't think that's Larian's fault.)

I don't think this is an issue with any right or wrong answer. Ultimately, it looks like the goal of BG3 is to faithfully port over a lot of DnD 5e to a CRPG format. The problem is, the most faithful part of the system is, when you get right down to it, that human element of making everything run smoothly. How many people would play a tabletop campaign if the GM was Data from Star Trek or Terminator's Cromartie? 'You walk into a dark cavern. You can't see anything because you don't have infravision. Roll initiative. You are hit by a Basilisk at maximum range and turned to stone. Game over.'

(As an aside, Baldur's Gate 1 had this exact issue and people rightfully hated it. Don't keep those rose-tinted goggles on, people.)

Anyway, to illustrate my point, I'll draw on a bunch of issues that I think have compounded together by looking at a specific part of the game that draws repeated complaints. Some of these have to do with the game as it is, and some of it stems from how players interact with the game. The part I'll be using as a 'case study' is the 'healing' the player receives from Nettie in the Druid's Grove.

The background is simple: the player, seeking to be healed of their brainworm, goes to see a healer - Nettie. Nettie promptly poisons them and the player is faced with an option: pass multiple skill checks to get the antidote from Nettie or die. Alternatively, the player can kill her or pickpocket her.

In no specific order, here are the issues:

1. Skill Checks are Boring

BG3's skill checks have a problem - they, without fail, feel like they fit the mould of succeed or fail. With success meaning you do the thing you wanted to do and fail meaning you don't, and often end up in a fight. There's no Disco Elysium-esque idea of failures having interesting consequences in and of themselves. So, Nettie's three checks are just three opportunities to 'lose.' I don't think there's anything wrong with the multiple skill checks, providing they're not just hoops to jump through to succeed. Unfortunately, they are.

I don't tend to 'save scum' in RPGs. I've played through Wasteland 3 and Pillars of Eternity 2: Deadfire recently and did it without reloading. This is because my consequences felt like they were arising my decisions and that, if something went wrong, it wasn't arbitrary. Meanwhile, there were certain moments in BG3 - such as Nettie - that I reloaded multiple times because it felt like I was being screwed by a dice roll. When I have a +4 modifier, it doesn't feel good to fail a DC10 check. DC20 checks just seem ridiculous. DC 5 feels terrible when you fail. A little bit of randomness is fine, but I think BG3 is bit too heavily loaded towards the dice roll.

And you don't even get experience for making the skill checks either. Oh, and the fact that so many of them are just DC10 (aka coin toss) is another related problem. I assume a lot of the numbers can and will be changed, but the underlying structural issue of it not being fun or interesting to fail is a deeper problem.

2. Story Elements are Missing/The Rest Mechanic

The first time I played to the end of the Refugee quest, I'd only gone to camp twice. The first time had been within the Goblin camp itself. I'd managed to get by on consumables and lucky checks. The first time I went to camp, a demon showed up and I felt like I'd missed a few pages. So, on my second playthrough, I made it a habit to go to camp whenever a party member talked about being tired. This improved a lot of things by a drastic amount, and smoothed over a lot of initial issues I'd had with the plot and characters. I feel like Larian may add in a fatigue mechanic at some point, but this is a pretty drastic issue.

To go back to the Nettie example, however, I'll point to something that came too late. At a certain point, Lae'zel mentions that you should be careful about going around and telling people you have a worm in your brain. But this had come after Nettie had already tried to kill me. If the player has been told that, hey, maybe don't go around telling people you're going to turn into a Mind Flayer, it might alleviate the issue that someone tries to kill them over it.

I really like the rest mechanic, but it's another of those things that gets smoothed over by a DM. I don't think I can stress enough how much I'd missed on my first playthrough by not going to camp every so often. All kinds of really nice character moments. I won't spoil them. It's also a nice way of dealing with an issue the originals had, where rescuing Imoen from Spellhold could take anything from a few days to a few months based on how much CHARNAME abused the rest button after every encounter. Winnowing it down to a short rest and a day end is really interesting, but it gets complicated when there's story and character beats tied to it. But without any sort of mechanic, how often should I be going to rest? And what am I missing if I don't?

3. Players Want to Experience Everything

A solution to the Nettie thing is to just not talk to her. But players generally want to experience all the content they can in a single playthrough. Having a consequence be 'you just don't get to do something' is related to my first point. I'd put a few other things under this umbrella - like Perception checks as you're exploring - as being similarly annoying. What did I miss? Who knows, but now I have this feeling in the back of my head that I'm missing out on something. Was it something that I'd think was cool? A neat bit of lore? Something to make Lae'zel like me? I can tell myself that it was probably just two gold pieces and a fork, but my brain will insist otherwise.

4. Gameplay and 'Choices'


Players draw a distinction between choices in dialogue and choices in gameplay. Going into combat with Nettie to get the antidote is not seen as a 'choice.' This is complicated by the fact that players generally just want to be the good guy, and don't want to kill someone who isn't highlighted red under any circumstances. Building on Point 3 - who knows what a player will miss out on if they kill Nettie? And this kind of leads to my next point...

4. Stat/Class (Im)Balance

The fact that Charisma controls all of the 'roleplaying' skills is pretty much absurd. I understand that it's how the 5e system is, but that's my point - the system sucks when it's being run by a machine. If the Nettie scenario was a tabletop session, I'd probably be allowed to posit that I could intimidate Nettie with Strength. And I mean, look at the way you talk to her in that scene, all about how you'll destroy the whole grove - if that isn't a threat based on how immediately physically imposing you are, I don't know what is.

On one hand, it's great that for the first time in the history of Baldur's Gate that Charisma isn't the dump stat. On the other, it sucks that it's now THE roleplaying stat which you better put a bunch of points in unless you want to be stuck failing everything.

This will probably be alleviated if party members are allowed to do checks. However, it may become more of a problem if the spellcasting classes can cast spells in dialogue to resolve things, meaning the more martial characters have to pump 'roleplaying stats.' And this is assuming there won't be moments where you won't be forced to make checks with one specific character, of course.

D:OS2's freedom of skill-based as opposed to class-based felt a lot better. I could shore up my weaknesses as I wanted and develop characters how I liked. Again, to all of you hardcore DnD players, I get that DnD is based around the class system. But part of the issue that people are upset about is that classes and their stats and skills matter so much more than they ever did in the earlier Baldur's Gate games - for better or worse.

(I feel like the multiple checks are a well-meaning attempt to give Fighters some equivalence. After all, Fighters don't clear whole combat encounters with one dice roll, right?)

5. Modifiers are Boring

Pretty self-explanatory. The player gets +x on the dice roll based on their stats and/or proficiency bonus. Yawn.

Where are the circumstantial bonuses? Where's the character, where's the history? Again, this is something a DM may just throw in. Perhaps the Nettie scenario might not feel so unfair if, say, the player was able to nudge the scales based on things they had done. This is something that Disco Elysium did extremely well. Wouldn't it feel satisfying if you had a +1 to the Intimidate if you punched out that adventurer or a +1 to the Persuade because you rescued Arabella?

They wouldn't need to all be positive, of course. But it'd help feel like things were arising as a result of my character's choices and history, and not just being decided because I didn't put enough numbers into certain stats when I made the character a few hours before.

6. Combat Downgrade

Move/Standard Action/Free Action is a step down from Divinity: Original Sin 2's AP-oriented combat system. BG3's combat is perfectly fine, but it's also not nearly as interesting. Again, the issue is that BG3 is doing it as close to tabletop as possible. Some people are upset over the surfaces being so common, but I think without them the combat would be far less interesting than it is.

That's really about it. As it is, I think just about every issue people have with BG3 stems from these compounding issues arising from the strict tabletop gameplay. For example, people wanting an increased party size - because you practically need someone who can lockpick and a Wizard for spells and a Fighter to tank and a Cleric to heal and support and, well, suddenly you feel like you're locked into needing specific characters just to experience content and be ready whatever you might run into. And if you made a Fighter and happen to like Lae'zel, well, good luck having two Fighters.

As for everything else - well, I only crashed once, and a lot of the other things are pretty minor that can definitely be fixed during the EA period (more loot, optimization, more autosaves, XP outside of combat, missing loot from shoving people into pits, etc.) But I think the way BG3 sticks so close to the established tabletop ruleset is something that will alienate a lot of players, both people expecting something more like D:OS2 and the hardcore DnD crowd who are used to having a friendly DM on their side.

Last edited by Milkfred; 11/10/20 02:05 PM.
Joined: Oct 2020
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: Oct 2020
!

Joined: Aug 2014
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Aug 2014
Skill Checks

I'm not a big fan of the huge variance in the d20 checks.

The difference between skill rank -1 and +5 is not impactful enough. Someone completely untrained with a negative ability modifier can easily succeed a DC10 check, while the most naturally adept and trained character at +5 can fail it. The bounded accuracy highlights this randomness further as you don't get to assign more skill points to anything.

I wish it was a d12 check instead. DC7 on a d12 would be much better at reflecting the difference between min/max skill levels in the example above.

Or you should get more skill points as you level up.

Last edited by 1varangian; 11/10/20 01:14 PM.
Joined: Oct 2020
C
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
C
Joined: Oct 2020
The OP was a great effortpost and I agree with all of it. Disco Elysium is a great example to follow on the roleplay side of things, and the combat in D:OS2 is far more interesting than what we have in BG3 (and if you disagree, try playing the game with 0-1 casters in your party).

Joined: Oct 2020
M
stranger
OP Offline
stranger
M
Joined: Oct 2020
One thing I'll add is that there appears to be a system to reroll on certain failures - Inspiration points? - but I don't think it's documented yet. At this time, I think you get them for completing certain quests. From memory, I also think I've seen choices display different kinds of checks when you mouse over them (the dice are green maybe? It's very infrequent) and they imply you might make the check on two dice or something, yet are written as checking on 1D20 (so, why even have a different tooltip?) It's possible that there's a bunch of dice check mechanics that aren't implemented yet.

Being able to expend resources to reroll dice would help, of course, but it's only really a bandaid over the actual problem.

Joined: Oct 2020
R
stranger
Offline
stranger
R
Joined: Oct 2020
While completely true, that it is impossible to properly convey a human DM via a pre-programmed game, it's not impossible to make a game that relies on those very mechanics enjoyable.

1. A skill check should be made to prevent something bad (like a fight you don't want), to improve a situation that is already determined (request a higher reward), or a specific approach to solve a problem (bribe a guard to let you through).
Out of the three, only the last one can potentially run into problems with a human DM vs pre-programmed game. People don't want to kill Nettie, because they understand her logic, yet if they fail the skill chain, they don't have a choice but to kill her - this wouldn't be NEARLY as big a deal if there was at least one other option to get out that didn't require her death - solving a puzzle or something, i.e. extra effort from the player's part.

2. Not much I can say - tying core(?) story elements without an indication of how to access them is a big design oversight. And the current resting mechanics is something that should be reworked. How? No clue. I have ideas, but those are echoes of what others have said and/or would require significant overhauls to the game - so I won't even try.

3. This. Very much this. I think it would be a good idea to lock out some paths/quests based on where the party decides to go - for example if you find the Gith Patrol before going after Halsin, he'll be dead.

4. As somewhat mentioned before - if the choice is A or B, and B is generally the "bad option" that happens due to something outside of a player's control (random die roll, or worse - a chain of those), then it IS going to seem that we don't have a choice. Give us and option C, hopefully even D, and then this becomes a non-issue.

4. (again) Fully agree that other skills should play a part in social interactions. One option would be to allow a player to select from a list of options for what ability score to use, for Intimidation Strength OR Charisma. Other skills should also be part of social events, like instead of Persuasion, ask an incriminating question and make an Insight roll.

5. 5e doesn't exactly have a circumstantial bonus, but even if it did, the mechanic wouldn't change - it would just automatically reduce the DC and the UI would be the same. Still, this feels like something that should be relatively easy to implement: if Quest: Save Arabella [Complete], then persuasion check DC reduce by 2 in druid camp.

6. I agree that the 5e action economy isn't the most exciting and even limiting (PF2e has an action economy almost identical to that of DOS and feel much more enjoyable), however, that is what the game is and, for better or worse, what I was looking forward to play with.

Joined: Oct 2020
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Oct 2020
Nearly exactly my thoughts.
That D&D system drains away all the fun. 1 action,<bonus meeh action>, move, pass. Dice checks.
DOS2 action point combat gameplay is so much more fun.
Larian just add SOMETHING to that 5e system, spice things up!!

Last edited by mr_planescapist; 11/10/20 02:17 PM.
Joined: Oct 2020
M
stranger
OP Offline
stranger
M
Joined: Oct 2020
Agrred, Raivorus. I do like how BG3 is a decent implementation of the 5e system and I wouldn't want it to change, but I'd be interested to see if Larian does anything to make it play better as a single-player CRPG experience (call it the friendly GM experience.)

As far as the second point goes, I'm assuming there may be some kind of fatigue mechanic in the future, which the originals even had - why else have the characters talk about being tired? And with point three, it surprised me that the Gith Patrol was a bunch of Level 5 hostiles when it'd been presented by the game as one of the first quests you got. Despite Lae'zel going on and on about the creche (and my perspective as a player being that she seemed to know what she was talking about), you can't really afford to skip over the goblin camp or refugee situation. I think also that the final game will include a bunch of day-related timers that might force the player to choose, just based on some pre-release interview stuff that I remember hearing. But who knows.

Oh, yeah, Kingmaker was another RPG I've played recently and didn't have an issue with how my choices and actions played out.

Last edited by Milkfred; 11/10/20 02:14 PM.
Joined: Apr 2014
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
Joined: Apr 2014
OP makes a lot of great points overall!

I agree with the OP on the stacked rolls during dialogue. Sure, it's something a human DM can do to you too, to force a particular outcome (and always entertaining when the player rolls nat 20s), but it is a bit overused here, and feels wrong from a player's perspective. Nettie's I'm actually fine with, but less so with the others.

I'd feel less annoyed by it if I could switch in another present character. Like have Shadowheart or Wyll attempt to persuade instead of me.

But passive skill checks? I kind of love their implementation as much as it gives me FOMO vibes or freaks me out when I know there's a trap I can't see. But that's actually just like the tabletop.
DM narrows eyes at the paladin player: "Give me an insight check."
Player: "Uh...I rolled a 6."
DM: "Okay. The wizard continues his explanation..."
Players: ...



Last edited by Ryllharu; 11/10/20 02:14 PM.
Joined: Jul 2014
Location: Italy
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Jul 2014
Location: Italy
I couldn't disagree more with several of the claims being made here, but then again the best of D&D (especially for a party based computer game) comes from level 5 going up and when you start mixing more exotic classes, builds and creatures into the playtime, which is precisely the type of content missing currently.
Still, even this build of BG3 shows glimpses of greatness that DOS couldn't even dream about (mostly because of questionable decisions Larian made in the past and they are correcting only now, rather than for merits of D&D 5E).

Joined: Oct 2020
L
member
Offline
member
L
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Tuco
I couldn't disagree more with several of the claims being made here, but then again the best of D&D (especially for a party based computer game) comes from level 5 going up and when you start mixing more exotic classes, builds and creatures into the playtime, which is precisely the type of content missing currently.
Still, even this build of BG3 shows glimpses of greatness that DOS couldn't even dream about (mostly because of questionable decisions Larian made in the past and they are correcting only now, rather than for merits of D&D 5E).
+1

Joined: Jun 2019
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: Jun 2019
Originally Posted by Labayu
Originally Posted by Tuco
I couldn't disagree more with several of the claims being made here, but then again the best of D&D (especially for a party based computer game) comes from level 5 going up and when you start mixing more exotic classes, builds and creatures into the playtime, which is precisely the type of content missing currently.
Still, even this build of BG3 shows glimpses of greatness that DOS couldn't even dream about (mostly because of questionable decisions Larian made in the past and they are correcting only now, rather than for merits of D&D 5E).
+1

+1 to both

Joined: May 2014
D
member
Offline
member
D
Joined: May 2014
Originally Posted by clanpot
The OP was a great effortpost and I agree with all of it. Disco Elysium is a great example to follow on the roleplay side of things, and the combat in D:OS2 is far more interesting than what we have in BG3 (and if you disagree, try playing the game with 0-1 casters in your party).


I like d&d 5e and I enjoy a game with 5e rules better than D:OS2.

Joined: Oct 2020
R
stranger
Offline
stranger
R
Joined: Oct 2020
Agreed with OP.

The dice rolls is making the choices feel arbitrary. I'm fine with conversation checks coming from stat based, but these random dice rolls feels sooooo pointless. I'm just not feeling invested in my character or the dialogue cause randomness determines all my dialogue options.
As for combat, I like that movement is separate from Actions, however i wish there was a better primer/tutorial cause it took me ages to figure out how to fight well (I'm pretty sure I'm still missing a few key mechanics here and there). I wouldn't say no to going back to the AP system either.

Another thing I want is controller support so badly. I'm just not able to do K+M. I have to keep my camera on my character, constantly adjusting the view. I want the camera to just follow my character in the center as it moves.

Also want the companions to follow me when I jump, right now I've to make every companion jump individually in order to follow the MC.

However one thing that blew me away is the conversation cut-scenes!!!! OMG the character models, the lighting, the DOF, everything is so perfect. It's been ages since conversation cut-scenes were this good. This reminds me of the Dragon Age origins cut-scenes. I hate when the DOF is turned wayyyyy up like in Horizon ZD.




Last edited by Raur; 11/10/20 02:55 PM. Reason: Clearer statements
Joined: Oct 2020
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
Joined: Oct 2020
I get the feeling that there may eventually be another solution to the Nettie problem, remember Larian are asking us to focus on the usually underplayed evil route through the game at this stage, and there is a stone slab in the room which leads out into a tunnel which you are currently unable to open (room behind it is full of poison gas)

Joined: Oct 2020
C
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
C
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by jonn
I get the feeling that there may eventually be another solution to the Nettie problem, remember Larian are asking us to focus on the usually underplayed evil route through the game at this stage, and there is a stone slab in the room which leads out into a tunnel which you are currently unable to open (room behind it is full of poison gas)

You can lockpick the slab. It leads to an area that is accessible by other means but provides a more advantageous starting position.

Joined: Oct 2020
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
Joined: Oct 2020
"A little bit of randomness is fine, but I think BG3 is bit too heavily loaded towards the dice roll."

Couldn't agree more with you. After 7+ hours i have a feeling that my playthrough is 100% random and not they way i've like to play - which is neutral good, quite peacuful and helpful to everyone around.
Just because I'am out of luck with dice roll i'am constantly involved in fights with the characters I would like to deal different way. At the moment I feel like renegade Shep in ME and i have no real control over my character.

I also agree with other people about the combat system: the one in DOS2 was MUCH better than this one in BG3. DOS2 feels much more tactical, full of suprises and unpredictable. In BG3 my fights are quite boring, just wait for your turn attack and wait again until your enemy is dead.

Last edited by ste100; 11/10/20 03:15 PM.
Joined: Mar 2020
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Mar 2020
I think this is a good place to mention my fire emblem thesis. In the first five fire emblem games, the Rng worked with one random number that determined hit or miss. The results were based on the stats of the characters, but still there was a lot of randomness involved, and players felt like the games are not really fair. Since fire emblem six there are two numbers that are generated and the average of them is the generated number. It means that your chances are improved but there is still a random element to the game, but it's still feels more fair. More details here: https://fireemblem.fandom.com/wiki/Random_Number_Generator
I think some solution like this would benefit the game immensely, if Larion doesn't want to remove the system altogether


Larian's Biggest Oversight, what to do about it, and My personal review of BG3 EA
"74.85% of you stood with the Tieflings, and 25.15% of you sided with Minthara. Good outweighs evil, it seems."
Joined: Jul 2014
M
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
M
Joined: Jul 2014
I'm actually surprised, that so many of you want just a DOS3 instead of a BG3.
because that is exactly what OP is describing.
BG1 and 2 both used the dnd rule set from their time. At least they tried to adapt it as good as possible for their time.
the DND5e system is fine, even without a generous DM. there is no problem to use that system as basis for a computer game. look at pathfinder kingmaker. they took a much more complicated rule system and implemented it pretty faithfully and people love it.
yet here we are complaining, that BG3 would be boring if it was faithful to 5e rules. i really don't get it.

We are at a point, were one group wants a DOS3 and the other wants a BG3.
I don't want to be rude, but what about we wait for a DOS3 until BG3 is finished. because i think it would be great to see some thing new from larian, instead of an improvement from their other games.

Joined: Mar 2019
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Mar 2019
Originally Posted by Milkfred
DC20 checks just seem ridiculous. DC 5 feels terrible when you fail. A little bit of randomness is fine, but I think BG3 is bit too heavily loaded towards the dice roll.

It's not that BG3 is heavily loaded towards the dice roll, it's that D&D is. Anyone coming from a D&D background should know this. A friendly DM wouldn't make much a difference at all, unless they just give you ridiculous bonuses all the time.

Originally Posted by Milkfred
And you don't even get experience for making the skill checks either. Oh, and the fact that so many of them are just DC10 (aka coin toss) is another related problem. I assume a lot of the numbers can and will be changed, but the underlying structural issue of it not being fun or interesting to fail is a deeper problem.

XP for some checks is something that can be added, sure. But "fun to fail?" What do you mean? And sometimes, shit is a toss up (DC10). What do you want?

Originally Posted by Milkfred
Perception checks as you're exploring - as being similarly annoying. What did I miss? Who knows, but now I have this feeling in the back of my head that I'm missing out on something. Was it something that I'd think was cool? A neat bit of lore? Something to make Lae'zel like me? I can tell myself that it was probably just two gold pieces and a fork, but my brain will insist otherwise.

Maybe I am not bothered by this as much because it's all brand new and I see things I miss as something to be found on subsequent playthroughs. I would be okay with hiding these checks, though.

Originally Posted by Milkfred
Players draw a distinction between choices in dialogue and choices in gameplay. Going into combat with Nettie to get the antidote is not seen as a 'choice.'

We can only choose options available to us (btw you should preface the Nettie stuff with 'Spoiler Alert'). After you 'chose' to let her help you, your choices were limited to dying, convincing her, or killing her.

Originally Posted by Milkfred
On one hand, it's great that for the first time in the history of Baldur's Gate that Charisma isn't the dump stat. On the other, it sucks that it's now THE roleplaying stat which you better put a bunch of points in unless you want to be stuck failing everything.

You can't have it both ways. You mention how it sucks that even with a +4 bonus you can fail. Well, the flip side is with no bonus you can still succeed.

Originally Posted by Milkfred
D:OS2's freedom of skill-based as opposed to class-based felt a lot better.

This just sums up how I see basically everything you said. You seem to just want everything to go the way you want it. Have any character be able to do whatever they want and be able to do it as good as anyone else and have everything go your way. It's the mentality that gave rise to such wonderful RPG features as fast travel, no death penalty, loot everywhere and hundreds of levels. Sorry man. -1

Page 1 of 11 1 2 3 10 11

Moderated by  Nicou 

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