Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - General Request to make game more apealing to some BG fans.

Sigh....ok I didn't mean it in the exact literal sense but you do know what I mean.....combat is core to this game....to remove it takes away one of the core elements which is combat in D&D.

Huh. Dunno how I managed to spend 244 hours having fun in this game while it was missing one of its core elements. Must be bugged.

You can spend all the time you want in M&B not fighting, that doesn't mean combat isn't one of it's core elements.

The same is true for BG3.

https://www.pcgamer.com/mass-effect-3-narrative-mode-and-action-mode-explained/

Narrative mode, trivializes combat. So maybe it doesnt allow you to skip combat, but gets past it quick enough.

Yeah, it is indeed precisely not what you said it was.

I'm sure the devs think so, and many players do, but to me - and the OP, apparently - it's not at all important and can be skipped completely without compromising what I paid $60 for. I don't see why some folks get so worked up about other folks not wanting to whack stuff with pointy sticks. I doubt the devs are going to wake up one morning and say, "Y'know, those two people were right. Combat is boring. We're going to revamp the system into resolving conflicts with dance therapy."

"That's not a feature many people want or need, so there's no reason for the devs to spend time on it," is a reasonable response to the OP's request. "What, no combat? Might as well just throw the game in the trash!" is not. Different people like different things, and how one person plays video games is not The Right and Only Way to play video games.

This isn't meant as a "stfu" or anything: combat is often undersold in games. I know Imoen became one of my favourite npcs in Baldur's Gate I because she was in the backlines shooting with a bow. That might sound trite, however I have several fuzzy warm memories of her killing Something About To Kill, and that boosted my attachment to the character. When Gale is lamenting no hot baths and he wants a good comfy armchair to vanish into, that has more weight after you've been half-murderised by a monster encounter, imagining tiefling fighter he's whining to giving a tired understanding nod of agreement while said tiefling is mentally cataloguing how many healing items they have, if/when they can get some more, knowing the upcoming fight is going to be a struggle.
Skipping dialogue removes that sort of player experience and potentially removes memorable scenes from a player.
Spinning it out to a slightly more abstract thing, Dark Souls has an oppressive atmosphere, and one of the simple ways it does that is by making combat difficult; every fight is potentially dangerous to the point that seeing the campfire that lets you save your progress is an emotional relief. Relief that is replaced by unease with metaphorical walls closing in as they leave the campfire to push on into harder fights. Easy mode for games like Dark Souls have been asked/demanded but to do so undermines the entire point of the game.

I'm going to assume you meant skipping combat. If it's that meaningful for you, great - I'm glad you enjoy it! Doesn't change anything on my end, though.

(Obviously most games don't care if you skip through dialogue, they make it pretty darn easy to do that. I wonder how much of a riot there would be if Larian added a "skip through combat" button and took away the "skip through cutscenes" one.)


For some people. Not for the people demanding easy mode, obviously. Again we get some players trying to dictate how other players should enjoy a game. In the end, it's up to the devs to decide how they want to build and market their product. (And if you think there aren't people already playing the games on EZ mode via cheats, I've got news for you...)

I think a debate between narrative or gameplay is flawed, if one doesn't support the other than you're making two games, one a visual novel and another tabletop war game. D&D is a combination of both and a D&D game's combat and narrative should support each other, though the uninteresting combat in 5e is a common complaint.

Personally I value a narrative more than the gameplay the same way I'll overlook a comic's art because I'm invested in the story (to a point), if anyone here played Greedfall, I was interested in the story being told there (especially because there is a serious shortage of sail and sabre rpgs) but because the combat was so uninteresting and repetitive I still haven't finished that game, there's really no pay off to the narrative portion of the game when the combat is so uninteresting, that would be true whether or not I could skip it.

Giving me a setting to turn off the difficulty or by-pass combat all together means to me that the game either doesn't have interesting combat or hasn't given the player adequate ways to work around a 'combat as fail-state' puzzle.

I liked Greedfall, it had some interesting concepts and twists. No comment on the combat, I skipped it, obviously.

The great thing about tabletop D&D is that it has all sorts of rules and most can be ignored at the DM's discretion. There have been D&D campaigns run without combat encounters and there will be again. As long as the players are on board, everyone has fun.

+1

I think I asked if the feature was there and then I researched it. Sorry I didnt speak in an absolute knowledge of a game mode I didnt use. Maybe spend more time not being a douche? This is a game and a "meh" one at that, like the rest of the D:OS series. I dont find the combat as engaging as the TT or as even other games in the genre like Kingmaker or even the other BG games. People play games and experience stimuli differently and you just want to argue. Whatever floats your boat. Im sure your sticky hardened waifu pillow makes your life worthwhile, regardless.

As you are clearly not a douche who just wants to argue, I’ll do my best to live up to the example you set.

😂😂😂

he says, looking in the mirror. Also, if you're not a big fan of the game, what are you doing hanging out on the forums?

Cut out the snarkiness and insinuations.

You were perilously close to a short holiday for that post.

Because I bought what I thought was BG3, what I got was D:OS3. Still stings a little.

Ohh boy you are gonna get a lot of crap for that suggestion.

That said I support a combat skip. I'd never use it, but its not for me. The point of a game is to have fun.

Maybe a toggle or something before you start a game would be a better idea though? Maybe in the form of a story mode?

Although I would not use it, I see no problem in adding an extreme Story/No-combat Mode as you describe.

I say most fights, as there has to be exceptions for logic / story. That mode would prohibit some violent options. For example, in Story/No-combat mode, you could not auto-wipe all the druids in the grove of course nor auto-wipe all the creatures in the "Goblin camp", which is fine as I know whoever chooses Story Mode would accept that and use non-combat methods (diplomacy or stealth) in the grove, etc.

To clarify again. I am not against combat in general.
I enjoyed it in many other games. In bg3 it’s not fun however. It doesn’t feel like DnD at all and it immersion breaking with al that jumping around and race for height or barrel exploit.

I respect if someone actually finds that a fun gameplay. However to me it’s killing the absolute fun I have with the game outside of combat.

If I had a wish free I would say make the combat like pathfinder or solasta. Or even pillars of eternity and I consider this a pretty bad combat but still less annoying than bg3.

However I know this won’t happen and game will stick with its dos styled combat. And instead of complaining I thought about a solution.

If combat can’t be made enjoyable for me and a lot of others then it could be made optional. That way the game keeps a lot of value to many people. And since a skip combat is optional I really can’t see why people are upset about it.


And making combat easy doesn’t solve the problem that combat is immersion breaking and annoying.