Larian Banner
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 2 of 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Joined: Oct 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by sunset261

you can actually side with the bad guys.
Combat arenas are more interesting than just a flat plane
lots of hidden nooks and crannies and secret passages.
better verticality
better stealth
5E rules allow for more interesting use of positioning.
5E rules prevent buff stacking before every hard fight.

I don't mean to be contrarian but you could side with the bad guys(and be the antagonist) in older BG games. They where also filled with secrets that lead to much bigger payoffs than what is currently in the game even in the starting areas. While flanking and position is highlighted and played up a lot this has nothing to do with the editions and positioning mechanics where, as a matter of fact, nerfed in 5e and weaker comparatively to some of the older editions. 5e rules do not prevent prebuffing either(mage armor lasts for 8 hours for example) and this is again something that the game is actively working against rather than the ruleset.

As far as verticality and combat arena's I agree with you completely but I am still waiting for the full release before I pass judgement on stealth mechanics as too much is missing and with how the action economy has already been altered I'm curious to see what else will be changed prior to a 1.0 release.


I am here to discuss a video game. Please do not try to rope me into anything other than that. Thank you.
Joined: Oct 2020
addict
Online Content
addict
Joined: Oct 2020
Shadows of Amn is my favorite game of all time, I still feel the urge to replay it every so often, so I don't hold it against other games if they don't compare to it. I'll reserve my judgement of the story in BG:3 because of how little there is of it, but I'm a big fan of the direction companion characterization is going. For me a large part of why BG:2 is evergreen is because of the writing, banter and character quests that occur with your party, that said, NPC agency is something I'd really like to see developed more in games like this and I like what I've seen so far from BG:3.

That said there are two things I don't think BG:2 did well:

1. The characters could be great or not, depending on the writer. The level of writing in BG:2 could be very uneven sometimes.

2. There were no mid-tier battles. Combat in Baldur's Gate 2 was either all or nothing. Encounters broke down into two types; either your enemies have one gimmick, if you could counter it the fight becomes trivial, if you couldn't you'd fail;
then things go from 3 to 11, with wizard fights, the first round of combat is just a chorus of sequencers putting up protection magic, and the battle devolves into a war of attrition as the mages sling debuffs at each other, and the grunts just mill about. "my weapon does nothing" "heresy!"

to the first point, like I've said, I'm seeing good things. I also think 3 has so far had a nice range of encounter types, so all in all I'm happy with it.

Last edited by Sozz; 18/10/20 06:17 PM.
Joined: Mar 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Mar 2020
Time will tell but so my vote is: tremendously entertaining game that doesn't feel like BG yet. Not yet sure if I'm in the "not BG3 but I'm okay with it" or "this is proof that it should have been called "Baldur's Gate: Rise of the Absolute" camp. I largely agree with what @nicotta @robertthebard @svig and @ambits have said.

The good:

Writing: So far the stories of Wyll and Shadowheart are grabbing me. Gale is annoying as crap but he's also well written -- every BG game needs an Anomen it seems.

The tadpole is good substitute for the Bhaal powers and in some way better done that the Bhaal powers. The cambion is a good substitute for the deal with the shadow thieves.

Mechanics: put me as a big fan of the dice roll. Fond memories of hoping that I would actually make that savings throw, nice to see my proficiencies count! Some core rules -- like the ability to see in dark are better implemented in BG3 than they were in the other games. In BG, infravision was a wasted spell. Now I have a use for low light vision and my human is paying the price for those stat buffs.

The bad:

The origin characters overshadow me. The "ahh I'm back in the underdark" for my drow character isn't enough. Like PoE1 my background should count. The character creator also needs an expanded background creator. Why is a former chosen of god, a priest on a holy mission and a hero of the sword coast following my lead? In BG, the older, more experienced Jaheria deferred to me because I had a divine destiny. The former chosen defers to me -- why, exactly?

The game, so far, is Larian linear. Just like there were multiple ways to get into the dungeons and out of Fort Joy, so there are multiple ways to get to moonrise towers. Branching paths but all roads lead to Rome. What's missing is the BG1 / BG2 - chapter 2 / PoE2 open world experience. Let's hope that changes when we get to Baldur's Gate. I want that BG1 experience of walking into a random home and getting a quest. Lots and lots of quests.

The BG series had a higher replay value than any other game to date and

(this was also a failure of PoE1 -- the quests didn't open up until you took the keep, until then it Obsidian linear. Again, multiple paths all leading to Rome)

4 party members. Bad decision. Needs to be 6.

Undecided

Waiting to see if you can put together a heroic party. I want to save the save the sword coast from a costly war with Amn. I want to put an end to destructive beholder cult. I want to kick butt for goodness. I liked saving the lives of the kids in the grove but I also saved the lives of murderous asshats who wanted to build that wall (of thorns) and so the victory feels a bit mixed. I get my realpolitik fix from the news, in fantasy I want to play the hero's quest. Preferably heroism mixed with a dash of ironic humor -- "Fear not! I will inspire you all by charging blindly on!"



Joined: Oct 2020
S
stranger
Offline
stranger
S
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Argonaut

I don't mean to be contrarian but you could side with the bad guys(and be the antagonist) in older BG games.


Kind of. You couldn't side with Sarevok in BG1 and you could temporarily side with Bodhi over the shadow thieves in BG2 but this game seems like it's going to give the option to fully side with the villains.

Originally Posted by Argonaut

5e rules do not prevent prebuffing either


I didn't say it did but concentration prevents just stacking a ton of them before every hard encounter. You can prebuff but each caster can only have 1 buff active at a time.

Joined: Jun 2020
member
Offline
member
Joined: Jun 2020
No-one has played BG3 , we've only played Early Access of the first chapter., so it would be impossible to have an informed opinion.

Ask again in a year once BG3 comes out and then people can compare.


Joined: Sep 2020
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Sep 2020
On the topic of the music in this game, it is completely substandard and below average.

The menu / loading screen grunting male choir for example isnt even 2% near to Skyrims Dovakhin track.

It sounds like they have simply used a midi choir rather than real vocalists or some such, and on top of that none of the music from the game in the 50+ hours I have played is memorable and I haven't heard anything that I thought 'wow I really like that'.

The only reaction I have felt is cringing over the menu / loading grunting noises.

Joined: Oct 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by sunset261
Originally Posted by Argonaut

I don't mean to be contrarian but you could side with the bad guys(and be the antagonist) in older BG games.


Kind of. You couldn't side with Sarevok in BG1 and you could temporarily side with Bodhi over the shadow thieves in BG2 but this game seems like it's going to give the option to fully side with the villains.

You could also side with the shadow thieves. You could also side with the corrupt figureheads of water deep or the malignant genies. You could let the Raksasha go etc. You could actively choose to be the bad guy and you could actively choose to ignore the plight of common people. You can let Irenicus win. Obviously there are cases where you couldn't join the minor villains because of extraneous factors(such as being a flesh puppet to a skinwalker) but you could choose to be the main villain and antagonist as well. You can choose to become the God of Murder. The games mechanics even reflect this because if you do choose to be evil people will find out, your infamy will spread, and righteous people will hunt you down. I understand that the older games where not perfect in this regard but they where created during the dawn of the genre. We are currently in it's renaissance so there is no reason for there to be less choice.

Originally Posted by sunset261
Originally Posted by Argonaut

5e rules do not prevent prebuffing either


I didn't say it did but concentration prevents just stacking a ton of them before every hard encounter. You can pre buff but each caster can only have 1 buff active at a time.

I can have two mages in my party in 5e and one can cast fly and the other can cast invisibility. I have now stacked two very powerful buffs pre battle in 5e. I would agree if you had said that it is harder or more situational to stack buffs but not even all buff spells are concentration and you can stack potion buffs and buffs from other sources such as items or wands readily.

Last edited by Argonaut; 18/10/20 08:57 PM.

I am here to discuss a video game. Please do not try to rope me into anything other than that. Thank you.
Joined: Mar 2020
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Mar 2020
Originally Posted by Alodar
No-one has played BG3 , we've only played Early Access of the first chapter., so it would be impossible to have an informed opinion.

Ask again in a year once BG3 comes out and then people can compare.


short but to the point


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: Sep 2020
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Sep 2020
Originally Posted by Argonaut
Originally Posted by sunset261
Originally Posted by Argonaut

I don't mean to be contrarian but you could side with the bad guys(and be the antagonist) in older BG games.


Kind of. You couldn't side with Sarevok in BG1 and you could temporarily side with Bodhi over the shadow thieves in BG2 but this game seems like it's going to give the option to fully side with the villains.

You could also side with the shadow thieves. You could also side with the corrupt figureheads of water deep or the malignant genies. You could let the Raksasha go etc. You could actively choose to be the bad guy and you could actively choose to ignore the plight of common people. You can let Irenicus win. Obviously there are cases where you couldn't join the minor villains because of extraneous factors(such as being a flesh puppet to a skinwalker) but you could choose to be the main villain and antagonist as well. You can choose to become the God of Murder. The games mechanics even reflect this because if you do choose to be evil people will find out, your infamy will spread, and righteous people will hunt you down. I understand that the older games where not perfect in this regard but they where created during the dawn of the genre. We are currently in it's renaissance so there is no reason for there to be less choice.

Originally Posted by sunset261
Originally Posted by Argonaut

5e rules do not prevent prebuffing either


I didn't say it did but concentration prevents just stacking a ton of them before every hard encounter. You can pre buff but each caster can only have 1 buff active at a time.

I can have two mages in my party in 5e and one can cast fly and the other can cast invisibility. I have now stacked two very powerful buffs pre battle in 5e. I would agree if you had said that it is harder or more situational to stack buffs but not even all buff spells are concentration and you can stack potion buffs and buffs from other sources such as items or wands readily.


Siding with the shadow thieves was the default 'good' option.

Joined: Sep 2017
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Sep 2017
BG2 was one of the most boring RPGs I have ever played so I have never finished it, Bg1 was the only good game in that series until BG3. BG2 was filled with boring quests/characters/places while Bg1 made you feel like you are on a grand adventure with friends.

Last edited by Hawke; 18/10/20 09:21 PM.
Joined: Mar 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Mar 2020
Quote

I don't mean to be contrarian but you could side with the bad guys(and be the antagonist) in older BG games.


This. You could kill the leader of a slave revolt and ensure that children are sold into slavery. You could poison the druid grove for a few extra coin. You could free an immortal lich to access a powerful ring. You could perform a live sacrifice a to Demon Lord to get the most powerful hammer in the game. You could make slaves explode just to see them explode, you could feed them to spiders. You could sell silver dragon eggs to yet another demon to get a powerful axe. And the options to create zombies and to summon a demon to kill everyone are right there in your spellbook. You could allow innocent civilians get fireballed just so you could keep a silver sword. You could either help an evil race of shark men thrive or let them die in agony (no good option on that quest). You could kill random gnomes all for the glory of Lloth. You could keep a child's soul entrapped in a gem for more power. You can walk around in armor made of human flesh and wear a helmet made from the skulls of the mage's parents. You could give into your urges and become a lamprey faced monster. You could betray your allies and become the new lord of murder. And this is in core game, not the EEs which gave even more evil options.

Hell, good parties side with an evil thieves guild and betray their drow patron.

I'm glad those options are in the game because they make the good actions meaningful. BG2 got it right -- have evil options but don't make it the point of the game, leave that for niche titles like tyranny. (and Larian's data and the sales numbers of Tyranny makes it clear that evil options are a niche)

Last edited by KillerRabbit; 18/10/20 09:21 PM.
Joined: Oct 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by DumbleDorf
Originally Posted by Argonaut
Originally Posted by sunset261
Originally Posted by Argonaut

I don't mean to be contrarian but you could side with the bad guys(and be the antagonist) in older BG games.


Kind of. You couldn't side with Sarevok in BG1 and you could temporarily side with Bodhi over the shadow thieves in BG2 but this game seems like it's going to give the option to fully side with the villains.

You could also side with the shadow thieves. You could also side with the corrupt figureheads of water deep or the malignant genies. You could let the Raksasha go etc. You could actively choose to be the bad guy and you could actively choose to ignore the plight of common people. You can let Irenicus win. Obviously there are cases where you couldn't join the minor villains because of extraneous factors(such as being a flesh puppet to a skinwalker) but you could choose to be the main villain and antagonist as well. You can choose to become the God of Murder. The games mechanics even reflect this because if you do choose to be evil people will find out, your infamy will spread, and righteous people will hunt you down. I understand that the older games where not perfect in this regard but they where created during the dawn of the genre. We are currently in it's renaissance so there is no reason for there to be less choice.

Originally Posted by sunset261
Originally Posted by Argonaut

5e rules do not prevent prebuffing either


I didn't say it did but concentration prevents just stacking a ton of them before every hard encounter. You can pre buff but each caster can only have 1 buff active at a time.

I can have two mages in my party in 5e and one can cast fly and the other can cast invisibility. I have now stacked two very powerful buffs pre battle in 5e. I would agree if you had said that it is harder or more situational to stack buffs but not even all buff spells are concentration and you can stack potion buffs and buffs from other sources such as items or wands readily.


Siding with the shadow thieves was the default 'good' option.

Could you please explain to me how you came to that conclusion because I would consider it to be the lesser of two evils. The shadow thieves are not good people and many people are discontent with their existence. They are open with the laws they break and have done equally questionable things as the vampires. The vampires are only worse because they are unholy undead abominations but murder is murder. Theft is theft. And being slightly less worse than an unholy undead abomination is not good in the most forgiving of conditions.

Originally Posted by Alodar
No-one has played BG3 , we've only played Early Access of the first chapter., so it would be impossible to have an informed opinion.

Ask again in a year once BG3 comes out and then people can compare.


This is an extremely poor take and very condescending. Do you think we lack the reasoning to make estimations in lieu of that knowledge? Did you think the points we are making are not in consideration of that? In a year the game may not be early access and it would be much more difficult, costly and time consuming for changes to be made or things to be adjusted making this not only the best time for Larian to receive feedback but it is also the purpose of early access. If you disagree with the points being made you are more than welcome to dispute them with your reasoning and supportive evidence. If that was not the intention then I would like them to please explain to me what I paid full price for?

Last edited by Argonaut; 18/10/20 10:05 PM.

I am here to discuss a video game. Please do not try to rope me into anything other than that. Thank you.
Joined: Sep 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Sep 2020
Actually Argonaut, Alodar's response is quite accurate, and your comment is rather obnoxious and arrogant. You asked how does BG3 compare to BG2 and he noted, quite correctly, that nobody has played BG3. Had you asked how does the current early access version of BG3 similar to, and different from BG2, you would perhaps be posing a viable question. You cannot compare an unfinished, essentially beta test version of a product to a product that was not only finished and polished, but modified out the wazoo for years with enough options to satisfy any palate.

There is a difference between seeking comparative data, and opinion. Data is System A operated in this fashion, system B operated in that fashion. Opinion is which someone preferred. Critique is a combination of both of those, plus an offering of alternatives that might resolve any disparity or disjunction between Data and Preferences.

It also appears that whenever someone offers an opinion that differs from yours, you want them to justify their opinion. That suggests you merely seek affirmation of your position, rather than someone's personal critique.

Joined: Sep 2020
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Sep 2020
You have two choices in BG2, side with the Shadow Thieves or side with the Vampires.

The fact that if you side with the vampires, you still get betrayed by Bodhi proves that it is the 'evil' choice out of the two.

Shadow Thieves are not an evil organisation. In Fact Imoen is a thief and Neutral Good. Robin Hood would 'steal from the rich to give to the poor' as an example of a Chaotic Good act of thievery.

That is not to say that the Shadow Thieves are a 'good' organization either, however all that they are is that they are not a 'Lawful' organization, and would likely attract interest from non lawful good, neutral and evil aligned characters.


Joined: Oct 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Anfindel
Actually Argonaut, Alodar's response is quite accurate, and your comment is rather obnoxious and arrogant. You asked how does BG3 compare to BG2 and he noted, quite correctly, that nobody has played BG3. Had you asked how does the current early access version of BG3 similar to, and different from BG2, you would perhaps be posing a viable question. You cannot compare an unfinished, essentially beta test version of a product to a product that was not only finished and polished, but modified out the wazoo for years with enough options to satisfy any palate.

I didn't ask anything. I gave feedback. You are welcome to go back to my feedback and explain to me how full release will change the problems I raised. You are welcome to do so to any of the criticism levied against it and thereby prove your point. What is unwelcome is proclaiming your viewpoint from a high standing and expecting us to all solemnly nod while you tell how we think and how wrong we are. We can think for ourselves thanks.

Originally Posted by Anfindel
There is a difference between seeking comparative data, and opinion. Data is System A operated in this fashion, system B operated in that fashion. Opinion is which someone preferred. Critique is a combination of both of those, plus an offering of alternatives that might resolve any disparity or disjunction between Data and Preferences.

This is very nice word salad. You are welcome to challenge my, or anyone elses, criticism and prove it. Have you not read peoples posts and see caveats such as "so far" or "currently" or "maybe it will be improved in the future"?

Quote
It also appears that whenever someone offers an opinion that differs from yours, you want them to justify their opinion. That suggests you merely seek affirmation of your position, rather than someone's personal critique.

Or, and this is just a crazy idea, I want to hear what they have to say. Of course I will challenge an opinion that I do not agree with and I have gone out of my way to be as cordial and inviting as possible while explaining my thoughts and reasoning as clearly as possible as well as explaining why I am asking for the reasoning behind certain opinions. This is the nature of a discussion. I can't stop you from making accusations and flinging insults but I hope you'll be understanding when I say I'm not going to enable or participate.

Originally Posted by DumbleDorf
You have two choices in BG2, side with the Shadow Thieves or side with the Vampires.

The fact that if you side with the vampires, you still get betrayed by Bodhi proves that it is the 'evil' choice out of the two.

Shadow Thieves are not an evil organisation. In Fact Imoen is a thief and Neutral Good. Robin Hood would 'steal from the rich to give to the poor' as an example of a Chaotic Good act of thievery.

That is not to say that the Shadow Thieves are a 'good' organization either, however all that they are is that they are not a 'Lawful' organization, and would likely attract interest from non lawful good, neutral and evil aligned characters.


You have more choice than that, and this has already been brought up with evidence. I can choose to side with the genies. I can choose to let the Raksasha go and tell them that I let her go. I can choose to leave the power hungry druid leader of the cove. I can choose to let her defeat Cernd. I can choose to let Irenicus win. In instances where choices are not provided to me there is concrete reasoning for it offered forthwith both internally and externally. I cannot join the murderer from the bridge district because he is a skinwalker and sees me as a flesh puppet. I cannot join Irenicus because he has to kill me to obtain his goal which will also end with my death. People have also admitted that BG2 is not perfect in this regard but offers a greater degree of choice and agency than anyone is giving it credit to and argues greater choice overall since you can choose to be the main antagonist of the game. All of these comments where made in respect to people proposing that BG2 does not offer you freedom, not that DivOS2 offers less or more. Even in the example you are given Bodhi has a very concrete reason for betraying you and I'm not sure why you see this as a negative as you where given the choice but the characters involve react realistically by their own motivations rather than by what your character wants.

The shadow thieves are not robin hoods either and practise theft, extortion, murder and political espionage for their own benefit and well being. When you walk into Linvails office, or even your initial liason, it is furnished luxuriously and Aran Linvail is shown to be double crossing and self serving repeatedly. They are even classified as TN/LE in the game files.

Last edited by Argonaut; 18/10/20 11:59 PM.

I am here to discuss a video game. Please do not try to rope me into anything other than that. Thank you.
Joined: Oct 2020
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
Joined: Oct 2020
Comparing the two games at the level of narrative makes me wonder, if Larian is too dead set on making players feel nostalgia, that they'll end up recycling way too many pieces of the plotlines found in the earlier installments. My biggest disappointment was the pivotal moral choice of chapter 1 in BG3(evil being just plain stupid/suicidal). And now that I think of it, its basically a repetition of the first pivotal moral choice you're given in BG2. I mean, in BG2 you're also given a choice between siding with a faction at war with your captors and foolishly siding with your captors parasitic minions.

Last edited by IdPreferNotTo; 19/10/20 01:01 AM.

The promise of being led to death is reason enough to follow.
Joined: Mar 2021
O
stranger
Offline
stranger
O
Joined: Mar 2021
I know that BG3 it's an early access game but, that said, at the moment I prefer the previous BG 1 and 2 .
In this ealry access, I notice the beauty of the artwork but I don't fill the same vibes of the previous BG1-2 , I don't fill the depth of the characters, I don't fill the complexity and the thin shade of the abilities and the spells, I don't fill the need to study in depth every single little move during the combat, I don't feel the need of studyng every spell, ability and resistance of the enemies... in other words BG3 is at the moment a DOS2 drone, and the game is not able to transfer the beauty and emotions of the classic D&D RPG as BG1 and 2.
That's my debatable and modest opinion.

Joined: Nov 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Nov 2020
It's not as good.
I don't say that as a mean thing but as a criticism. And this is mainly cause of the EA status of the game making it incomplete.
That said, it has a great amount of potential. And with a lot of work it could genuinely become the best videogame dnd adaptation. But we are a long way from there, and we are a long way from being par with the enjoyment of BG1/2.

Joined: Mar 2021
A
stranger
Offline
stranger
A
Joined: Mar 2021
Originally Posted by Hawke
BG2 was one of the most boring RPGs I have ever played so I have never finished it, Bg1 was the only good game in that series until BG3. BG2 was filled with boring quests/characters/places while Bg1 made you feel like you are on a grand adventure with friends.

BG1 is super underrated compared to BG2. I think it is hard to argue that BG2 is a better game. However, "x game is just boring" is aweful game critique, as a community we should be above it. What makes something "boring" often has more to do with our particular state of mind when we engage in it then the merits of the thing itself. Sometimes I find Shakespeare boring, it doesn't mean he wasn't the greatest English writer of all time. I know that because others times, when I am in the right state of mind, Shakespeare is a blast to read. People who only try once to play a game but weren't engaged by it forfeit their ability to judge the game. I mean, they can judge it, but none of the rest of us will take it seriously.

Joined: Jan 2017
G
addict
Offline
addict
G
Joined: Jan 2017
A little algebra can help us to find the difference (X) between BG3 and BG2. First, let's switch to a more common notation:

X = BG3 - BG2 --> X = (3 * BG) - (2 * BG)

Then some simple factoring will give us our answer:

X = (3-2) * BG
X = (1) * BG
X = BG

So, the difference between Baldur's Gate 3 and Baldur's Gate 2 is Baldur's Gate.

Page 2 of 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

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