Larian Banner
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 8 of 11 1 2 6 7 8 9 10 11
Joined: Oct 2020
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Divine Star
All of the complaint and hate is funny to someone who came in knowing nothing about the Baldur's Gate series, nor D&D beyond watching popular streams. I was looking for an experience and can only shake my head at how much people complain about rules and mechanics.


I find it more that there are 2 groups of people that are very vocal and angry if you don't share their opinion (kind of like real life).
1) People who played DOS/DOSII and think that if this game has even 1 similarity it's DOSIII, not BG3.
2) People who think that if it deviates at all from 5e, it's garbage.

IMO, its totally BG3 and close enough to 5e. It was promised as an "adaptation" which is a word many including OP need to lookup. There are still many things that need fixing and improving, but IMO few relate to DOS or 5e.

Joined: Oct 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by RumRunner151


I find it more that there are 2 groups of people that are very vocal and angry if you don't share their opinion (kind of like real life).
1) People who played DOS/DOSII and think that if this game has even 1 similarity it's DOSIII, not BG3.
2) People who think that if it deviates at all from 5e, it's garbage.

IMO, its totally BG3 and close enough to 5e. It was promised as an "adaptation" which is a word many including OP need to lookup. There are still many things that need fixing and improving, but IMO few relate to DOS or 5e.




Very much this. "Adaptation" does not mean "exact copy".

Joined: Mar 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Mar 2020
Originally Posted by Firesnakearies
Originally Posted by RumRunner151


I find it more that there are 2 groups of people that are very vocal and angry if you don't share their opinion (kind of like real life).
1) People who played DOS/DOSII and think that if this game has even 1 similarity it's DOSIII, not BG3.
2) People who think that if it deviates at all from 5e, it's garbage.

IMO, its totally BG3 and close enough to 5e. It was promised as an "adaptation" which is a word many including OP need to lookup. There are still many things that need fixing and improving, but IMO few relate to DOS or 5e.




Very much this. "Adaptation" does not mean "exact copy".


The problem with that position is that there is a better adaptation of the rules out there -- Solasta -- and the adaptations have caused problems (some of which you've identified).

So the question is will Larian listen or try to cure this sickness with the hair of dog? Say bolstering the scared flame cantrip? Increasing the damage fireball does? Further bumping up the average number of enemies the spell 'sleep' knocks out? If so then you get even further from the rules and the new problems emerge.

Also, the game is riding on the coattails of a game that had a very strict "adaptation" of the rules and criticisms like this go with the territory. Larian wouldn't have sold X number of copies of DOS3, the extra sales numbers came from the BG name and the D&D ruleset. If you get to direct one of the Star Wars sequels you aren't evaluated on the basis of "is this a good sci-fi film?" but "is this a worthy successor?" "did they get the tone right?" etc.

Joined: Oct 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Oct 2020
True, but Solasta is a small, niche indie game that can afford to be appealing almost entirely to 5e D&D fans. Baldur's Gate 3 is MUCH bigger, and has to be fun for a much wider audience, many of whom will know nothing about D&D. So for each rule, they have to ask themselves, "Is it worth keeping this strictly on point with the official D&D rules, or would more people enjoy it better if we tweaked it?" I can't say whether the decisions they've made so far are good or not, because I don't know how the game will ultimately be received by "the masses". There are things I would like changed, of course, but even if NOTHING on my list is changed, I will still love this game. Some of the more glaring rules changes, that a lot of people are unhappy about, don't really bother me. If they change Fire Bolt back to it's official 5e version, that would be fine. If they don't, also fine.

I also quite disagree that the original Baldur's Gate games were a "very strict" adaptation of D&D in their day. Bioware took plenty of liberties, too.

Last edited by Firesnakearies; 06/11/20 02:14 AM.
Joined: Oct 2020
R
addict
Offline
addict
R
Joined: Oct 2020
If it were not for BG3, hardly anyone would have heard about Solasta. The game would sell up to 100k (it would probably be less) copies, which would be enough for the creators.
And when it comes to larger titles, relying on a specific (limited) fanbase might not end well (see Obsidian)


Last edited by Rhobar121; 06/11/20 02:28 AM.
Joined: Oct 2020
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by KillerRabbit

The problem with that position is that there is a better adaptation of the rules out there -- Solasta --


But here's the thing. Who are you to say it's better? And why is that your opinion is more right than mine or anyone else's? I own both games. I have spent 13 hours playing Solasta and 330 hours playing BG3. Care to guess which one I feel is a better "adaptation"?

It's one thing for people to express their opinion. We all have them and we all have the same right to express them. But many on these forums seem to think their opinion is more right and/or that they speak some cosmic truth that everyone should agree with when in fact... it's just their individual opinion. Like all opinions, some will agree with it and some won't.

Joined: Oct 2020
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Firesnakearies
True, but Solasta is a small, niche indie game that can afford to be appealing almost entirely to 5e D&D fans. Baldur's Gate 3 is MUCH bigger, and has to be fun for a much wider audience, many of whom will know nothing about D&D. So for each rule, they have to ask themselves, "Is it worth keeping this strictly on point with the official D&D rules, or would more people enjoy it better if we tweaked it?" I can't say whether the decisions they've made so far are good or not, because I don't know how the game will ultimately be received by "the masses". There are things I would like changed, of course, but even if NOTHING on my list is changed, I will still love this game. Some of the more glaring rules changes, that a lot of people are unhappy about, don't really bother me. If they change Fire Bolt back to it's official 5e version, that would be fine. If they don't, also fine.

I also quite disagree that the original Baldur's Gate games were a "very strict" adaptation of D&D in their day. Bioware took plenty of liberties, too.


LoL I should just let you speak for me from now on...you are much better at it.

Joined: Mar 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Mar 2020
Originally Posted by Firesnakearies


I also quite disagree that the original Baldur's Gate games were a "very strict" adaptation of D&D in their day. Bioware took plenty of liberties, too.


We'll have to disagree on that -- they took the big liberty of making a turn based game into a real time with pause and, otherwise? Pretty much by the books. Which was quite the challenge because 2nd edition was anything but coherent being -- spun across multiple books and being contradictory in places. They even brought in things from the Zhakaria and Ravenloft settings. The house rules they used were largely the ones that most table top groups were already using -- no level caps on demi humans, letting good clerics use evil spells, etc.

Joined: Mar 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Mar 2020
Originally Posted by RumRunner151


LoL I should just let you speak for me from now on...you are much better at it.


True. You're not very good at it. Or at reading comprehension for that matter.

Perhaps you could by starting by looking up the definition of adaptation? Or reading what I wrote? Yes, I get your *very* complex point "it's all relative man". It's something of a non sequitur.

Joined: May 2014
D
member
Offline
member
D
Joined: May 2014
Originally Posted by PrivateRaccoon
Originally Posted by HustleCat
As far as core rules being the default, isn't it more important to test the new rules in EA?


I would argue that is exactly what we've been doing and we point out the flaws in them. Also, Larian doesn't only implement new rules, to make them fit, they change and overwrite old ones.
Now, I'm not a member of the design team so I can only take a guess on the mind mapping evolution during design discussion. And I picture it going something like this:


-Alright team. We've been cleared to do this game. How do we move forward?

-well, we know what people have liked in our other games so we should build on that.

-ok, explain.

-well, in this fight with 5 goblins it would be cool to add an explosive barrel so that players feel smart hitting that taking out all five goblins in one strike.

-I understand you, but now the fight becomes too easy don't you think.

-well, we could add more enemies.

-ok. but now the barrel only takes out 5, what about the other 5?

-Well, there could be other tactical options like surfaces the players can interact with. like oil and grease and water that gets affected by spells.

-oh oh, I have an idea. with all the fire and oil around, wouldn't it be cool if that could help the melee players as well?

-ok. we include a dip mechanic but we are still talking low levels and spells that affect environment is higher up.

-well that can be changed by small changes made to the cantrips

-yeah, but another problem is that we seem to miss a lot, how do we change that?

-easy, we lower the AC.

-doesn't that makes the fight too easy again?

-well, lets raise the hp

-ok, that settled, how do we handle defense. This isn't real time so players won't be able to move away from enemies in an instant.

-Well, I read somewhere there is this disengage option. Wouldn't that work? And also, they can just jump/move away from the npc's during their turn.

-good idea, the problem is that disengage makes you lose the attack during that turn unless you're a rogue. so now we have everyone playing cat and mouse.

-can't we combine jump with disengage so that players still will get to attack each turn?

yeah, alright team I think we have something here!

-well, sir, doesn't this affect spell mechanics and class identity?

-Oh shut up Karen, can you for once stop with your negativity. We're making something cool here!


Now, I ofc am making exaggerations but what I'm getting at is that one change, leads to another change, that leads to two new changes, that quickly spirals out throughout a whole system. When all that extra work making changes to an already working combat system, could have been avoided if the first change wasn't made. A change made just to make one of Larian's darlings fit in.

I'm not saying d&d is perfect. that's why there have been several editions of it. and there is room for improvement without affecting the whole system. What Larian did with Rangers is a perfect example of that. You can bake chocolate chip cookies for people with gluten intolerance. But can you bake them changing the chocolate chips to gummi bears?

Joined: Oct 2020
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by KillerRabbit
Originally Posted by RumRunner151


LoL I should just let you speak for me from now on...you are much better at it.


True. You're not very good at it. Or at reading comprehension for that matter.

Perhaps you could by starting by looking up the definition of adaptation? Or reading what I wrote? Yes, I get your *very* complex point "it's all relative man". It's something of a non sequitur.


Wow devolving from righteous opinions to personal attacks...impressive. Very persuasive too.

Joined: Mar 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Mar 2020
Good catch. Clearly I engaged in a personal attack while your post saying that people who disagree with you are self righteous blowhards that can't distinguish opinion from objective truth was the epitome of a respectful exchange of ideas. You know, this?

Quote
But many on these forums seem to think their opinion is more right and/or that they speak some cosmic truth that everyone should agree with when in fact... it's just their individual opinion.
Or you know
Quote
from righteous opinions


Kettle-black and all that.

Joined: Sep 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Sep 2020
Originally Posted by KillerRabbit
Originally Posted by Firesnakearies
Originally Posted by RumRunner151


I find it more that there are 2 groups of people that are very vocal and angry if you don't share their opinion (kind of like real life).
1) People who played DOS/DOSII and think that if this game has even 1 similarity it's DOSIII, not BG3.
2) People who think that if it deviates at all from 5e, it's garbage.

IMO, its totally BG3 and close enough to 5e. It was promised as an "adaptation" which is a word many including OP need to lookup. There are still many things that need fixing and improving, but IMO few relate to DOS or 5e.




Very much this. "Adaptation" does not mean "exact copy".


The problem with that position is that there is a better adaptation of the rules out there -- Solasta -- and the adaptations have caused problems (some of which you've identified).

So the question is will Larian listen or try to cure this sickness with the hair of dog? Say bolstering the scared flame cantrip? Increasing the damage fireball does? Further bumping up the average number of enemies the spell 'sleep' knocks out? If so then you get even further from the rules and the new problems emerge.

Also, the game is riding on the coattails of a game that had a very strict "adaptation" of the rules and criticisms like this go with the territory. Larian wouldn't have sold X number of copies of DOS3, the extra sales numbers came from the BG name and the D&D ruleset. If you get to direct one of the Star Wars sequels you aren't evaluated on the basis of "is this a good sci-fi film?" but "is this a worthy successor?" "did they get the tone right?" etc.





Solasta is not a "better" adaptation of the rules, it is simply a "different" adaptation applied to a very different game. What works in actual application for one game is not determinant of what works in another. There are vast differences in characterization, builds, story-telling, target audience, and numerous other aspects, between BG3 and Solasta. Each will stand or fall on the particular mix used in THAT game - and should not be construed as determinative of what works best in the other.

Joined: Feb 2020
Location: Belgium
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Feb 2020
Location: Belgium
Originally Posted by Firesnakearies
Originally Posted by RumRunner151


I find it more that there are 2 groups of people that are very vocal and angry if you don't share their opinion (kind of like real life).
1) People who played DOS/DOSII and think that if this game has even 1 similarity it's DOSIII, not BG3.
2) People who think that if it deviates at all from 5e, it's garbage.

IMO, its totally BG3 and close enough to 5e. It was promised as an "adaptation" which is a word many including OP need to lookup. There are still many things that need fixing and improving, but IMO few relate to DOS or 5e.




Very much this. "Adaptation" does not mean "exact copy".


Not sure anyone complain it's not an exact copy.
There's something between what BG3 is actually and what an exact copy of D&D would be...

Backstab for everyone and higher ground advantage are what I call "adaptations" to suit better the medium.

Dipping, froggy jumps, eating during combats, scrolls for everyone, resting system, surfaces potions and arrows and/or cantrip for everyone, HP bloat, OP creatures etc.....
When the entire game is balanced arround many new things, it becomes closer to a total convertion than a few adaptations...

I'm just a fan of BG, I don't really really care about D&D but I really think the gameplay could become way more deep, tactical and immersive with more D&D and less custom wtf mechanics everywhere.

Last edited by Maximuuus; 06/11/20 06:38 AM.
Joined: Oct 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2020
I havent played EA that much yet, but I am confused with arrows. No arrows in the game means that there is no arrow of bitting, +1, +2, detonation, ice/fire, etc...like in baldurs gate 2 ?

Last edited by mr_planescapist; 06/11/20 09:09 AM.
Joined: Sep 2017
Location: Norway
S
addict
Offline
addict
S
Joined: Sep 2017
Location: Norway
Originally Posted by Sludge Khalid
For me it’s DOS3. End of story.

I use to say that I used to rage against people saying that BG3 is DOS3
Now I’m their friend

World full of meaningless items
Color palette
Word full of containers
Battle based in environment and not in class
Height rules
Backstab
Forced multiple actions per turn by breaking the rules
Babysit customer with bedrolls
Save scum
Beach
Unbalanced
Quantity over quality

Well, I could spend some time listing what I’ve disliked about it.

Just a couple of months ago, I was fully onboard with TEAM LARIAN, and habitually shot down guys like you as premature ejaculators lol. After experimenting a little with BG3 early access though I'm inclined to agree with most of your points. Clearly Swen Vincke succeeded in a Deception skill-check when he asserted they had ported D&D as faithfully as they could. The inverse seems almost more true. A number of homebrew will have the very foreseeable consequence of generating ever more homebrew to fix what their faithless porting unnecessarily broke to begin with. While also breaking balance in all kinds of ways (ie. the excessive use of advantage with higher ground/flanking which is bound to break the Barbarian class while at the same time being a relative nerf to spellcasters). I criticised DOS2 loot over-focus as detracting from that game, and for BG3 this is even more true.

However. Some of the criticisms is downright petty and immature, not made because you take issue with something objectively problematic - but just because you get triggered by the very thought of DOS2 having had a similar aspect. Like the whole of two minutes you spend on a beach in BG3. I also disagree with much of the SAVE SCUM criticisms as this is CLEARLY an artifact of D&D while Larian has just as clearly made a PRAISEWORTHY effort to offset the binary RNG-nature of D&D. That said, I too found myself save scumming more often than I was comfortable with, particularly to adjust for bad RNG in combat. Nobody likes to miss and this is the reason Larian has lowered AC and increased the HP of enemies in general. Clearly an unfair case of damned if you do, damned if you don't. Not that you bother yourself with pesky nuance though.

In the torrent of negativity I feel almost compelled BG3 shows many hints of GREATNESS too. Especially when it comes to roleplaying/story, writing, voice acting (apart from the mute protagonist who sticks out like a sore thumb).

Joined: Sep 2017
Location: Norway
S
addict
Offline
addict
S
Joined: Sep 2017
Location: Norway
Originally Posted by mr_planescapist
I havent played EA that much yet, but I am confused with arrows. No arrows in the game means that there is no arrow of bitting, +1, +2, detonation, ice/fire, etc...like in baldurs gate 2 ?

Part of Larian's "faithful porting" haha. DOS-style exploitative gimmicks of elemental effects has superseded magical arrows. Ie. you have explosive barrels, acid pools, ever-burning candles in your inventory that can be used to set weapons ablaze.

Joined: May 2014
D
member
Offline
member
D
Joined: May 2014
Originally Posted by Seraphael
Clearly Swen Vincke succeeded in a Deception skill-check when he asserted they had ported D&D as faithfully as they could.


This.

Joined: Oct 2020
D
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
D
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by TheOtter
There is a backstab as in: "Ohohohoho, I am sneaky boi and can attack this guy without him having any knowledge of my presence at all!"

And then there is backstab as in: "Oh noes, I have no other ways but to dodge in order to defend myself from this guy who just jumped behind me, clearly he have a much harder chance of hitting me now, when standing behind me, where I can not really block or parry his attack, but only dodge, as opposed to when he is in front of me when I have greater variety of defense mechanisms."

At the end of the day, this is a general flaw in D&Ds turn-based systems, rather than BG3 itself.


In actual 5E there isn't back stab, there is sneak attack. Rogues do not have to be behind or even hidden to get it. If they have advantage for any reason, or if another member of the party is within 5' of their target, they get it. This is just one more way the deviation from 5E rules is causing an issue in BG3.

To Seraphael a few posts above, BG3 does show hints of greatness, but not in the area of "faithfully" implementing 5E rules, like at all, which is what this whole thread is complaining about, and for many, thus far the most disappointing aspect of what is otherwise a pretty fine game. If they can fix that, imagine how quiet the forum would get. This is THE biggest problem I am seeing people, myself included, have (not of course the only one, but the biggest).

Last edited by Dominemesis; 06/11/20 08:02 PM.
Joined: Nov 2020
M
stranger
Offline
stranger
M
Joined: Nov 2020
I completely agree with this. Right now this game does feel like DOS3 with a DnD lite mod.

Page 8 of 11 1 2 6 7 8 9 10 11

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