Larian Banner
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 5 of 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10
Joined: May 2016
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: May 2016
@Black_Elk

You are such a self-concious consumer lol. You KNOW Larian are working on things but you are giving tips on how to make it SEEM like they are doing more so that it would make you feel different about the game.

Joined: Oct 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2020
heheh its totally true though right

I honestly was just thinking to myself right now, how would the story beats hold up here if we never got to see any of these Origins till the full release? Like basically the reverse approach of what they actually went with. Say they had used mercs at first and held back on the origins for example. Instead of grumbling about how Shadowheart isn't nice enough, or has lame stats or whatever, could we then just judge the story progression in a more direct sort of way? Maybe held in suspense about who the Origin characters were actually going to be without really knowing and having that be a point of enthusiasm and anticipation (basically the way people are pulling for Minthara or Halsin or Sazza to join the party right now?) I'm not sure the opening of the game would connect in anything like the same way.

Right now the first Act is pretty reliant on the Origin companions to set the stage and introduce the whole narrative thrust, since they deliver most of the key early dialogue. To the point where if they were removed, the game wouldn't have much set up at all, and the PC would have no clue what's going on or where to head half the time.

Then I was trying to imagine, how does this get set up when a player chooses to play as Lae'zel? Lae'zel as the protagonist I mean. Rather than running into Lae'zel jumping down at us on the Nautiloid, is that suddenly going to be like Gale or Wyll, delivering the "Abomination! This your End!" line? Because that would certainly take away from the drama of that "scene" in the prologue. I can imagine a totally different convo with a different Origin companion getting subbed in, but it would definitely impact the feel and the delivery.

Or like if you play as Shadowheart, is it going to be Asterion in that pod? Or someone else banging at the door on the beach to make it really clear that you should "look for a healer" since otherwise the protagonist probably doesn't have the first clue.

I can't see myself playing the game as any of the Origin characters, but my understanding is that it's pretty much the point of them, as pre-rolled toons with all the VO content. But because they've sort of been presented as the "Stars" of the show in EA, now it feels near impossible to consider what the game looks like without them driving the story and the cinematics.

In know BG1 certainly worked like that to a degree. You were forced to interact with Imoen after Gorion gets dusted, no matter what you said to her the day before. But I think unlike this one, leaving candle keep you could opt to ignore literally everyone, and the game would still basically lead you onto the path. Even if you ditched Imoen, ignored the Zhents, punk'd Elminster, or told Jaheira to get bent, they weren't the one's conveying the main narrative. That happens through the forced NPC interactions, and dreams and such. But I think BG3 uses the Origins companions as a much more involved plot device, to the point where its picture the early game standing up without them. Because this one is way more cinematic, with the early scenes mostly comprised of Origin companion intros, I think the initial story beats would be a lot less compelling. But I want the game to be about my Custom Character, not the fab 5 Origins. I just wish there were more classes and more companions to choose from, so the idea of substitutions or leaving someone behind in a playthrough wouldn't feel like that's upending the run.

Last edited by Black_Elk; 31/12/20 06:20 PM.
Joined: Oct 2020
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by mr_planescapist
So what is the current consensus on the game? Living up to the hype?
Have all the BG1/BG2 D^D fans left for Solasta?
My feelings are that the VERY cinematic nature of BG3 is hurting/slowing its development (clumsy/cringy dialogues, tons of dialogue graphic bugs,lacking atmosphere...) while Solasta is powering on update after update fleshing out the world and its system in a very convincing manner. Yea the dialogues aren't amazing <AAA> stuff, but the game inst completely relying on them like in BG3. The game-play is already super solid. Can the same be said for BG3?

Each has its merits. I will say, I've put in almost 400 hours into BG3. Only 35 into Solasta. To me, BG3 has a lot of replayability. There are a lot of ways to progress through the game and lots of side things to explore. Solasta not so much. Likely I'll play Solasta through once and be done. BG3 I can see running through several times as playing with different companions and taking the different routes through the game makes it fun.

Joined: Oct 2020
B
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
B
Joined: Oct 2020
Bethesda has two main games: the Fallout series and the Elders scrolls series. I've played both. Being them from Bethesda they have similar mechanisms.

I'll never understand the surprise about Larian (who has made its name known thanks to the Original Sin: Divinity pair of games) maintaining an obvious recognizable stile.

As I'll never get the comparision with the precedent Baldur Gates. I have bought them because I wanted to have a little of knowledge about the background story of this set. I got bored, not for the graphic that is old, but by the chaotic combat system, I've no problems in learning new playstyles tied to different approaches by the diverse software companies, but rarely (even in the past) was I so annoyed by a combat system.

Not the turn based vs paused but the overall chaos, the jumbled and mumbled system that forced to continuously move the pointer to the characters Icons because the graphics made almost impossible (due even to the abbundance of companions and enemies) to discern one character from another.

When I read some messages I feel like they are more about the warm memories tied to the age when we played them than to the actual worth of said games.

Larian has to do something about the battle system (in the goblin cam if you don't take a prehemtive approach eliminating little groups of goblins thus lowering their numberd in vision of the aftermath of killing Dor you have to battle 20 and more enemies, added to the four members of the party it means it takes a lot of time, too much, specially if the battle ends up with a defeat.

In the translation from DOS to BG3 they've managed this aspect in the worst way possible. Specially in a set of rules that made the most powerful tool (spells) very limited.

I don't care abut the party 4 vs 6. I really don't care, maybe because in almost all the games that I have who have parties 4 is the usual composition (a tank, a healer, a dps, a rogue, that is you have all the needed templates).

Furthermore I'm convinced that the problems came not only from Larian but from how the DnD rules are made the existence of slots instead of stamina or manapoints make it overly complicated any combat, specialy for casual players [that are the majority, sorry to rain in this parade of hardcore high strategist players] who don't delve in spending time creating complex strategies or restarting anew or from a far in playtime save [that by the way is a form of savescumming, you can not save just before any single situation but if you replay the game after a defeat you're savescumming but just convincing yourself that you are not because you don't use it as frequent as other player, and when you reload, it doen't matter if after countless hours of game or any five seconds, you are using metaplaying because you already knwo what is going on. The only players that could lament savescumming are those that when their character died stop playing because just like in real life when you f*ck up you can not go back in time and redo the thing you messed up] after a defeat.

Other iterations like Neverwinter made use of stamina and manapoints with a due regeneration time and spells/skills have a time of recovery, DOS too made use of AP and different times of refresh for different spells and skills, the Elder Scrolls did the same.

The system of DnD is messed up also because being based on dice rolls luck plays a major roll (is the trend of the various miss/miss/miss/critical miss/miss/miss threads in the forum) so you have limited amount of spells, you save your best ones to the right moment but luck mess up and you get fu*ed up because you consumed the slot.

In a table top game this is not a big problem because usually you're not alone so you are enjoying the company of your fellow players thus a series of bad luck rolls can become a moment of conviviality and fun, the dungeon master can use the situation to create a new piece of story and so on. In a video game that part is completely lost (even in multyplayer) and the problem with the system of DnD (but in reality of many tabletop games) explodes.

Larian, Solasta, whoever did the precedent BG, can try to come up with a system that is less or more complicated and so on but at the end of the road the problem relies with DnD.

That's the reason they made the game full with scrolls, because it would be insensate in a reality where adventurers know they would go from one fight to another with limited spell and skill slots not to have a way to overcome that problem.


Answering the original poster, I like the game. Love the cinematics, love the dialogues (even though I couldn't swallow how they, just to please a very sexist part of players, sweetened Shadowheart) but I hope they add more options, sarcasm, humour, irony, in the full release, the combat system is not complicated but the turn based system becames time consuming when the battles imply a lot of enemies (like in the goblin camp), I appreciate that the game relies in dialogues after all this is not a first person shooting game, but an rpg (even if is not the more theatrical oriented White Wolf set), the bugs and so on: this is a early access, what do people expect? The full experience? When even games released in full go through a lot of bugs and glitches and need patches and hotfixes? [i admit that I'm lucky and my computer support the game very well so only in one instance I had serious problems].

I just hope that they start adding more new material specially since it seems it's going to take months before the full release. I maybe have a very bad memory but at my third run I'm starting to get bored.

Joined: May 2016
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: May 2016
@Black_Elk

I think you would only get lost in the plot without companions if you are not familiar with D&D at all, most of us know who the mindflayers are and how they reproduce and what you need to do if you get tadpoled. Which is a fair point of lack of accessibility if you are new to the franchise and are doing a lone wolf playthrough, but not too relevant to the plot. I've tried playing solo, it works.

Last edited by Kadajko; 31/12/20 03:07 PM.
Joined: Oct 2020
B
member
Offline
member
B
Joined: Oct 2020
Complaining about BG3 having D&D in there is a bit more than just simply off. Sorry, they made their marketing campaign that it is heavily based on D&D 5e - what did people expect? D&D has had a ton of issues through all its editions and I never was a fan of it, but 5e is the first good iteration of it for what it is doing. Its easy to get into, it has a very good flow and it seems overall pretty well balacned among classes (though subclasses can have issues). Its not realistic, it doesn't try to be and that's fine in a game like this. Its not overlly detailed and it doesn't need to. If you don't like D&D systems - then games based on its lore are simply not for you. I don't watch Marvel movies because I don't like super hero stories, but I also don't go to the cinema to complain about having super heroes in it.


I did not expect BG3 to be systemically like BG1 & 2 - because they said its based on 5e and not the outdated old editions that I only played for the lack of other video games back then. I also expected not to have to deal with a combat so heavily influenced by DOS2 because they said its based on 5e and only diverges from it where NECESSARY - and that's not the case. Its not even just changing details because its a video game. They did it deliberatly in a lot of ways completely breaking the systems balance to cater to their own preferences.

Party size isn't for me something crucial, I don't care if its 4 or 6.
I don't care about the limited options the EA offers, because I understand it makes no sense for them to broader it and it just adds more stuff that needs hotfixes instead simply expanding when they are ready. I don't like the companions at all, but I know this is just personal opinion and as long as the game gives me the option for a custom party I won't complain.
The story is so far meh, though I didn't expect it to tie to BG 1&2 anyhow, it didn't engage me at all as they constantly keep throwing random stuff at us trying to show off the whole monster manual, so the whole thing's urgency is just a blurred mess and the game keeps reminding you at every opportunity its a game and time doesn't matter, but I'm fine with it. Its not the best execution, but most RPG games have to admit being guilty of failing at urgency.
Cinematics being odd like so many things to accomodate for the developers' darlings - the origin characters - annoys me, but I get it, some people like them as much as I loathe them.


Overall this game is fine if you are not looking for a good D&D 5e adaptation and you liked DOS2 combat. Not knowing D&D or not caring about it you can like the combat system on its own merits or not. To me its an unbalanced mess, pretty much like DOS2 and for the same reasons and thus not enjoyable at all. I wouldn't even complain about it, if they were not harping about 'how much this game is like D&D 5e'. If I knew they would take so many liberties, breaking the balance for the sake of DOS2 mechanics, I wouldn't have bought the game.

At this point I'm already certain that I won't call it a masterpiece. To many design decions are simply not on par for me with things we have seen done in other games (story, immersion, characters,...). Question for me is will they manage to at least save it to the level of being a proper 5e combat or continue with their homebrew. If they do turn it into what they were selling it might be at least a good game. Currently I can't get myself to play it at least until something new is added that is worth testing out. After one playthrough I'm too annoyed by the companions and combats to bother.

Last edited by biomag; 31/12/20 05:54 PM.
Joined: Oct 2020
S
member
Offline
member
S
Joined: Oct 2020
I'm enjoying the game overall, there are some bothers.

-When a party member is downed outside of combat, realtime ticks over. I'd prefer to have it autopause or even go into turn, allowing a player to react comfortably.
-Splitting the party can be a faff with the portrait system. Either a shift+click or shorter drag+drop sytem would alleviate this
-No casting on the character protrait. Once more, I'd much prefer this, as it's easier to pop buffs on characters then. As an aside, it would be nicer if

A lot of people say "This isn't like Baldur's Gate I or II" as a complaint. I don't intend to disparage that opinion; I simply do not share it. Baldur's Gate was from another era, with different hardware. It used to hog hard drives when 8gb was considered huge, it used a different ruleset of dubious faithfulness (many mechanics did not work properly or were useless, especially certain spells) and, more importantly, it was the story of <CHARMAE>. When I heard Baldur's Gate III was actually-finally-this-time-really going forward, my reaction was "Oh no" thanks to reboots like Thi4f, Ghostbusters 2016, Disney Star Wars, Thundercats Roar, the Devil May Cry reboot and... well anyway.

So I enjoy the game is (apparently) a very clear break from the first two games while seemingly keeping the central theme of "How much are you willing to sacrifice for power". It's a sequel in that respect, akin to... I dunno, a james bond film is broadly similar in terms of plot

Joined: Feb 2020
Location: Belgium
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Feb 2020
Location: Belgium
Originally Posted by Some_Twerp753
I'm enjoying the game overall, there are some bothers.

-When a party member is downed outside of combat, realtime ticks over. I'd prefer to have it autopause or even go into turn, allowing a player to react comfortably.
-Splitting the party can be a faff with the portrait system. Either a shift+click or shorter drag+drop sytem would alleviate this
-No casting on the character protrait. Once more, I'd much prefer this, as it's easier to pop buffs on characters then. As an aside, it would be nicer if

A lot of people say "This isn't like Baldur's Gate I or II" as a complaint. I don't intend to disparage that opinion; I simply do not share it. Baldur's Gate was from another era, with different hardware. It used to hog hard drives when 8gb was considered huge, it used a different ruleset of dubious faithfulness (many mechanics did not work properly or were useless, especially certain spells) and, more importantly, it was the story of <CHARMAE>. When I heard Baldur's Gate III was actually-finally-this-time-really going forward, my reaction was "Oh no" thanks to reboots like Thi4f, Ghostbusters 2016, Disney Star Wars, Thundercats Roar, the Devil May Cry reboot and... well anyway.

So I enjoy the game is (apparently) a very clear break from the first two games while seemingly keeping the central theme of "How much are you willing to sacrifice for power". It's a sequel in that respect, akin to... I dunno, a james bond film is broadly similar in terms of plot

A game that feels like BG1/2 doesn't mean a copy of something that was made 20 years ago.
Baldur's Gate is not just "D&D", the story of the Bhaalspawn or 2D isometric.graphics.

"this isn't Baldur's Gate" mean that BG3 has nothing that is inspired by the old games mechanics except (maybe) "Bhaal" and "D&D". That's true, and that's VERY dissapointing for old fans like me.

What about controls ? Party size ? D/N cycle ? Huge number of companions ? Fast travel trough the worldmap ? Random encounters ? These are just a few exemples but is that too old for a modern game ?

Last edited by Maximuuus; 31/12/20 08:14 PM.
Joined: Dec 2020
Location: United States
stranger
Offline
stranger
Joined: Dec 2020
Location: United States
In my opinion they need an easy mode for us new players. Combat is way too frustrating, especially when a monster seems like it gets to hit you twice for every one time you hit it. Argh.

Also, they just need more side quests and the occasional random mob in the wilderness that you can kill for more XP, because I'm finding leveling up hard. There aren't enough side quests.

It would help if they improved the meager tutorial they have, too. It needs to explain how to "dip" weapons, for one thing.

Joined: Oct 2020
N
member
Offline
member
N
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Black_Elk
I think the Origin characters have kind of overshadowed more important things that I wish were at the forefront here.
i think this is a good comment to highlight speaking to an increasing trend ive seen bg3's ea having recently in that its been somewhat directionless with no real messaging via larian regarding what the devs are most looking at in terms of feedback at this time in development and/or when new features will be added as part of ea - it can be debated amongst the community where larian's resources are best being served (altho i too agree that the devs origin characters seem to be getting all the love), however as ea has continued the more and more i feel like larian may have been somewhat too ambitious and bitten off more than they can chew with the number of narrative and gameplay mechanics being concurrently implemented and its ultimately to the game's detriment.

tbh, i would have preferred if larian had first nailed down more of the gameplay mechanics (5e class/combat/spell translation, party size and movement control, cam control, day/night cycle and camp/rest mechanics, map/waypoint travel and exploration, random/ambush mobs [ambush while resting], full dnd character sheet ui, etc.) first or had that be a focus for ea feedback, seeing also as there are still more phb race/class options yet available (and at higher lvls in later game), before opening up 'act1' or tying in any story/narrative/spoiler points so to not split the studio's efforts/resources, but i can understand that being unrealistic from a video game development perspective given this stage of larians process.

as an aside, i hope in the future that larian will provide us with some type of ea roadmap or timeline for what and when new game features are planned to be implemented, even just estimates with 'underpromise/overdeliver' messaging would go a long way to curb what i feel is a growing sense of aimlessness during bg3's ea and also be a way to share with the community what the devs are paying the most attention to and where the community should be most focusing their feedback towards.

Joined: Oct 2020
member
Offline
member
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Clawfoot
I've been disappointed. The atmosphere/vibe of the game feels wrong. Larian made it too much like Divinity with non-stop comedy and campiness. The NPCs behave like they're in a movie that deliberately cast the very worst actors in the industry, with acting so cringeworthy and hammy that it's painful to watch. While the original BG series had room for comic relief and over-the-topness, this game seems to have almost nothing other than that. Everything is cranked up to 11, nothing is down to earth. Every part of BG3 comes off like it was designed by someone whose main goal was to make things as extreme and unusual as possible. I really prefer my fantasy settings to be tempered against a backdrop of realism, and BG3 utterly fails to be a believable experience. It ruins any chance of immersion for me.

And then it's just too similar to D:OS in all aspects. It feels like playing a D&D mod for D:OS2. The looks, the controls, the playstyle, the way you interact with the gameplay environment; Larian really didn't do enough to make the game feel different. Imagine if Bethesda had made Cyberpunk2077 and it was literally just Skyrim set in Night City, with Skyrim controls and mechanics and everything. Disappointing, to say the least.

Finally, the combat is terrible. Just profoundly unenjoyable. Part of that comes down to the fact that 5e is a tabletop game that translates inelegantly into a turn-based video game experience, but Larian could have alleviated that somewhat by not restricting the party size to four. With just four party members, the player just doesn't get to do enough during fights. Often you sit there for minutes waiting for a turn, and then you get to do one thing with one character and it's time to wait again. I believe Larian will heavily tone down the mindboggingly terrible "elemental surfaces" stuff in time for release, so that's not something I'm too worried about, but combat as a whole is so clunky and boring.
I am baffled by this first paragraph in particular. This game is, if anything, a little bit light on the humor compared to original Baldur's Gate games and the Divinity games. If anything, I kept waiting for a joke that never came with this game. I found the large majority of this game to be rather serious and down-to-earth. The opening with the dragon attack and the ride through hell is cinematic, but everything else was a bit subdued. The everyday stories of the refugees at the Tiefling camp and the general way everything played out was pretty fine imo. It just boggles the mind to me that you found this game ridiculous. What particular instances of ridiculousness stood out to you?

On the second paragraph, it's made by the same people. It stands to reason that there are certain design similarities. For the Bethesda thing, that's sort of what they did with Fallout because they're the *same game studio and they design games similarly because they are made by the same people*

The four party members has a reason. the main reason for that is the 5th edition reccomended party size. The Dungeon Master's Guide reccomends 3 to 5 players should make up an adventuring party. 4 fits cleanly between that. Other than that, it's subjective, so I got nothing.


I honestly hope you have a most marvelous day!
Joined: Feb 2020
Location: Belgium
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Feb 2020
Location: Belgium
Originally Posted by DuskHorseman
Originally Posted by Clawfoot
I've been disappointed. The atmosphere/vibe of the game feels wrong. Larian made it too much like Divinity with non-stop comedy and campiness. The NPCs behave like they're in a movie that deliberately cast the very worst actors in the industry, with acting so cringeworthy and hammy that it's painful to watch. While the original BG series had room for comic relief and over-the-topness, this game seems to have almost nothing other than that. Everything is cranked up to 11, nothing is down to earth. Every part of BG3 comes off like it was designed by someone whose main goal was to make things as extreme and unusual as possible. I really prefer my fantasy settings to be tempered against a backdrop of realism, and BG3 utterly fails to be a believable experience. It ruins any chance of immersion for me.

And then it's just too similar to D:OS in all aspects. It feels like playing a D&D mod for D:OS2. The looks, the controls, the playstyle, the way you interact with the gameplay environment; Larian really didn't do enough to make the game feel different. Imagine if Bethesda had made Cyberpunk2077 and it was literally just Skyrim set in Night City, with Skyrim controls and mechanics and everything. Disappointing, to say the least.

Finally, the combat is terrible. Just profoundly unenjoyable. Part of that comes down to the fact that 5e is a tabletop game that translates inelegantly into a turn-based video game experience, but Larian could have alleviated that somewhat by not restricting the party size to four. With just four party members, the player just doesn't get to do enough during fights. Often you sit there for minutes waiting for a turn, and then you get to do one thing with one character and it's time to wait again. I believe Larian will heavily tone down the mindboggingly terrible "elemental surfaces" stuff in time for release, so that's not something I'm too worried about, but combat as a whole is so clunky and boring.
I am baffled by this first paragraph in particular. This game is, if anything, a little bit light on the humor compared to original Baldur's Gate games and the Divinity games. If anything, I kept waiting for a joke that never came with this game. I found the large majority of this game to be rather serious and down-to-earth. The opening with the dragon attack and the ride through hell is cinematic, but everything else was a bit subdued. The everyday stories of the refugees at the Tiefling camp and the general way everything played out was pretty fine imo. It just boggles the mind to me that you found this game ridiculous. What particular instances of ridiculousness stood out to you?

On the second paragraph, it's made by the same people. It stands to reason that there are certain design similarities. For the Bethesda thing, that's sort of what they did with Fallout because they're the *same game studio and they design games similarly because they are made by the same people*

The four party members has a reason. the main reason for that is the 5th edition reccomended party size. The Dungeon Master's Guide reccomends 3 to 5 players should make up an adventuring party. 4 fits cleanly between that. Other than that, it's subjective, so I got nothing.

One second the game is serious and you crush a head with your foot... The next second you dip your sword in a candle or a torch.

Next time you heard about poor refugees killed by goblins... A few minutes later you eat the head of a pig between two attack during combats.

See how it looks ridiculous and inconsistent all over the place ?

A game doesn't look serious only because people are dying or mature because you have sex scenes...


- BG3 is 4 party members because D&D is 3-5...
- BG3 is turn based because D&D is turn base even if there are rounds of 6 seconds and spell duration in minutes, not in turns (TT convenience ?)
- BG3 doesn't care about time because time doesn't exist in D&D...
- BG3 allow us to dip our weapons because you can dip weapons in D&D...

Wait... All those sentences also looks ridiculous...

Last edited by Maximuuus; 31/12/20 10:11 PM.
Joined: Oct 2020
member
Offline
member
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
Originally Posted by DuskHorseman
Originally Posted by Clawfoot
I've been disappointed. The atmosphere/vibe of the game feels wrong. Larian made it too much like Divinity with non-stop comedy and campiness. The NPCs behave like they're in a movie that deliberately cast the very worst actors in the industry, with acting so cringeworthy and hammy that it's painful to watch. While the original BG series had room for comic relief and over-the-topness, this game seems to have almost nothing other than that. Everything is cranked up to 11, nothing is down to earth. Every part of BG3 comes off like it was designed by someone whose main goal was to make things as extreme and unusual as possible. I really prefer my fantasy settings to be tempered against a backdrop of realism, and BG3 utterly fails to be a believable experience. It ruins any chance of immersion for me.

And then it's just too similar to D:OS in all aspects. It feels like playing a D&D mod for D:OS2. The looks, the controls, the playstyle, the way you interact with the gameplay environment; Larian really didn't do enough to make the game feel different. Imagine if Bethesda had made Cyberpunk2077 and it was literally just Skyrim set in Night City, with Skyrim controls and mechanics and everything. Disappointing, to say the least.

Finally, the combat is terrible. Just profoundly unenjoyable. Part of that comes down to the fact that 5e is a tabletop game that translates inelegantly into a turn-based video game experience, but Larian could have alleviated that somewhat by not restricting the party size to four. With just four party members, the player just doesn't get to do enough during fights. Often you sit there for minutes waiting for a turn, and then you get to do one thing with one character and it's time to wait again. I believe Larian will heavily tone down the mindboggingly terrible "elemental surfaces" stuff in time for release, so that's not something I'm too worried about, but combat as a whole is so clunky and boring.
I am baffled by this first paragraph in particular. This game is, if anything, a little bit light on the humor compared to original Baldur's Gate games and the Divinity games. If anything, I kept waiting for a joke that never came with this game. I found the large majority of this game to be rather serious and down-to-earth. The opening with the dragon attack and the ride through hell is cinematic, but everything else was a bit subdued. The everyday stories of the refugees at the Tiefling camp and the general way everything played out was pretty fine imo. It just boggles the mind to me that you found this game ridiculous. What particular instances of ridiculousness stood out to you?

On the second paragraph, it's made by the same people. It stands to reason that there are certain design similarities. For the Bethesda thing, that's sort of what they did with Fallout because they're the *same game studio and they design games similarly because they are made by the same people*

The four party members has a reason. the main reason for that is the 5th edition reccomended party size. The Dungeon Master's Guide reccomends 3 to 5 players should make up an adventuring party. 4 fits cleanly between that. Other than that, it's subjective, so I got nothing.

One second the game is serious and you crush a head with your foot... The next second you dip your sword in a candle or a torch.

Next time you heard about poor refugees killed by goblins... A few minutes later you eat the head of a pig between two attack during combats.

See how it looks ridiculous and inconsistent all over the place ?



- BG3 is 4 party members because D&D is 3-5...
- BG3 is turn based because D&D is turn base (with rounds of 6 seconds and spell duration in minutes, not in turns)
- Time doesn't exist in BG3 because time doesn't exist in D&D...
- You can dip weapons in BG3 because you can dip weapons in D&D...

Wait... All those sentences also looks ridiculous...
So, you're saying that the game mechanics are somehow stupid or goofy? I don't understand why you would think that. I also didn't understand that was what you were getting at, it seemed as if you were claiming that the story varied wildly in tone, which it doesn't.

There's nothing too goofy about dipping imo, I think it's just sort of a catch-all in an attempt to show all the goofy combat shennanigans that any good DM would allow in actual, IRL, tabletop DnD.

I'm no proponent of eating to regain health either, but there's nothing that seems so ridiculous about doing it. It's been a thing in games for years. It's just, like... a thing. BG3 is four because that is the median party size in the reccomended size. It stands to reason that 4 is what was chosen.

And yes, BG3 is turn-based because DnD is turn based! That is absolutely correct!

Time does pass in BG3, just not in a day/night cycle. You travel around during the day, and take long rests when it gets dark.

Again, Dipping is sort of a catch-all for all of those DnD combat shenanigans that any good DM would allow.


I honestly hope you have a most marvelous day!
Joined: Oct 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Oct 2020
No decent GM would allow you to use a candle on your sword and gain fire damage.


Optimistically Apocalyptic
Joined: Oct 2020
S
member
Offline
member
S
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
A game that feels like BG1/2 doesn't mean a copy of something that was made 20 years ago.
Baldur's Gate is not just "D&D", the story of the Bhaalspawn or 2D isometric.graphics.

"this isn't Baldur's Gate" mean that BG3 has nothing that is inspired by the old games mechanics except (maybe) "Bhaal" and "D&D". That's true, and that's VERY dissapointing for old fans like me.

What about controls ? Party size ? D/N cycle ? Huge number of companions ? Fast travel trough the worldmap ? Random encounters ? These are just a few exemples but is that too old for a modern game ?
I think you misunderstand what I wrote (or I didn't explain myself very well). I don't want more adventures of charname, and I'm perfectly happy to take a game that follows the themes of the first game without desperately clinging to (or worse, undermining) those games.
The Bhaalspawn saga is over. Completely. Not only is it hundreds of years before Baldur's Gate III, Bhaal is back. His plan worked, because the 'official' narrative followed the books, then had a pen-and-paper module where the final bhaalspawns died and Bhaal's plan (finally) activated. Bhaal will pop in dialogue as an existing, worshipped god.
I'm okay with turn based combat because the realtime combat was great for the fights with popcorn enemies, however DnD was never designed around that and the game did suffer for it; too much happens too quickly, especially on higher difficulties and I routinely pause the game, issue orders and set things off for a few seconds. I understand if you wish it to be closer, however I prefer Baldur's Gate III's first act where things are -generally- fewer and deadlier. A more action orientated game could work, however that would require signficant reworks (such as in Sword Coast Legends) to work in the context of that game imo.
We know there's going to be more companions-Larian made a point that the... more 'morally challenged' npcs were going to be our company for the early access, fast travel is going to be in, most of your complaints will not be there for the first game. There are problems and only the most rose-tinted fanboy is going to say otherwise, but that's why the forum is here; cantrips leaving surfaces was removed due to feedback for example.

Joined: Feb 2020
Location: Belgium
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Feb 2020
Location: Belgium
Originally Posted by DuskHorseman
So, you're saying that the game mechanics are somehow stupid or goofy? I don't understand why you would think that. I also didn't understand that was what you were getting at, it seemed as if you were claiming that the story varied wildly in tone, which it doesn't.

There's nothing too goofy about dipping imo, I think it's just sort of a catch-all in an attempt to show all the goofy combat shennanigans that any good DM would allow in actual, IRL, tabletop DnD.

I'm no proponent of eating to regain health either, but there's nothing that seems so ridiculous about doing it. It's been a thing in games for years. It's just, like... a thing. BG3 is four because that is the median party size in the reccomended size. It stands to reason that 4 is what was chosen.

And yes, BG3 is turn-based because DnD is turn based! That is absolutely correct!

Time does pass in BG3, just not in a day/night cycle. You travel around during the day, and take long rests when it gets dark.

Again, Dipping is sort of a catch-all for all of those DnD combat shenanigans that any good DM would allow.

Seriously ? Diping your sword on a candle or a torch without something to coat it ? Eating food during combats ? Really ? A DM ?

Some game mechanics are stupid and totally unrealistic even in the reality of the FR. And yes, the tone of the story / the world change a lot and is totally inconsistent.

The experience is a whole and combats are a part of the story you're writing and the adventure you're living in this world. Combats have to fit the story and the world in which they take place.

What would be your reaction if Aragorn started eating the head of a pig during a fight in the LOTR ? (Video game, Books, film, choose your medium)
Wouldn't it be ridiculous ?

Because BG3 is a video game, it has to be inconsistent and include silly things ?
It can, but it hasn't to... especially when the world and the rules are designed to create consistent fantasy stories (which doesn't mean humor and a few silly situations aren't allowed... we're not talking about exceptions).

When I'm playing a game in the FR, with the rules of D&D and with a serious story... I want to experience what could be written or played as a story.

I'm absolutely not against humor or a few silly situations (BG1/2 were full of it), but combats is a huge part of the game and with all these jumps, food, dipping, fire, magical items, (visual effects,)... They just look totally gamey, immersion breaking and very badly integrated to the story.

Keep in mind I'm talking about gameplay mechanics, not who we encounter and why. This is fine... but combats deserve adjustments to become credible.

Last edited by Maximuuus; 01/01/21 10:57 AM.
Joined: Nov 2020
A
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
A
Joined: Nov 2020
Gale you're hurt! Here, eat this whole cheese wheel before they hack you to death you maniac!

Joined: Mar 2020
M
member
Offline
member
M
Joined: Mar 2020
I trust In Larian and that they are listening to feedback on mechanics as disengage, food heals, jump, long rest etc. I think they know its important to satisfy also the more hardcore rpg fans like myself (bg3 is basically the flagship of dnd 5e).
They can introduce alternative game modes with tweaks to rules and keep people who just wants to enjoy the story. I think the game has great potential to turn out to be something great.

Joined: Oct 2020
enthusiast
OP Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
Originally Posted by DuskHorseman
So, you're saying that the game mechanics are somehow stupid or goofy? I don't understand why you would think that. I also didn't understand that was what you were getting at, it seemed as if you were claiming that the story varied wildly in tone, which it doesn't.

There's nothing too goofy about dipping imo, I think it's just sort of a catch-all in an attempt to show all the goofy combat shennanigans that any good DM would allow in actual, IRL, tabletop DnD.

I'm no proponent of eating to regain health either, but there's nothing that seems so ridiculous about doing it. It's been a thing in games for years. It's just, like... a thing. BG3 is four because that is the median party size in the reccomended size. It stands to reason that 4 is what was chosen.

And yes, BG3 is turn-based because DnD is turn based! That is absolutely correct!

Time does pass in BG3, just not in a day/night cycle. You travel around during the day, and take long rests when it gets dark.

Again, Dipping is sort of a catch-all for all of those DnD combat shenanigans that any good DM would allow.

Seriously ? Diping your sword on a candle or a torch without something to coat it ? Eating food during combats ? Really ? A DM ?

Some game mechanics are stupid and totally unrealistic even in the reality of the FR. And yes, the tone of the story / the world change a lot and is totally inconsistent.

The experience is a whole and combats are a part of the story you're writing and the adventure you're living in this world. Combats have to fit the story and the world in which they take place.

What would be your reaction if Aragorn started eating the head of a pig during a fight in the LOTR ? (Video game, Books, film, choose your medium)
Wouldn't it be ridiculous ?

Because BG3 is a video game, it has to be inconsistent and include silly things ?
It can, but it hasn't to... especially when the world and the rules are designed to create consistent fantasy stories (which doesn't mean humor and a few silly situations aren't allowed... we're not talking about exceptions).

When I'm playing a game in the FR, with the rules of D&D and with a serious story... I want to experience what could be written or played as a story.

I'm absolutely not against humor or a few silly situations (BG1/2 were full of it), but combats is a huge part of the game and with all these jumps, food, dipping, fire, magical items, (visual effects,)... They just look totally gamey, immersion breaking and very badly integrated to the story.

Keep in mind I'm talking about gameplay mechanics, not who we encounter and why. This is fine... but combats deserve adjustments to become credible.




I kind of like how Poe Deadfire dealt with that. When you start a new game you can have certain RPG hardcore modes turned on or off as challenges. Like having limited rests / no combat food. Or daily ability restrictions, or lighting impacting your viewing area a lot more etc...

Last edited by mr_planescapist; 01/01/21 11:18 AM.
Joined: Oct 2020
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by adkfina
Gale you're hurt! Here, eat this whole cheese wheel before they hack you to death you maniac!

[Linked Image from static.tvtropes.org]


Lover of non-haughty elves and non-smutty lesbian romance
"1404. I will not spoil the adventure's mandatory ambush by using the cheesy tactic of a "scout"." - From "Things Mr. Welch is no longer allowed to do in a (tabletop) RPG"
Page 5 of 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10

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