Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - General Pathfinder Wrath of the Righteous vs BG3

It is pretty obvious that DE initially was inspired by Planescape. Which is completely fine in my book. It is a game that scratches that Planescape itch, but also tickles another part of the brain at the same time. And the artwork is gorgeous to boot.

It is interesting for me with BG3…it scratches the Dragon Age and DOS itch more than the BG itch imho. Which is…what it is, I reckon. Perhaps that is why there are so many posts like this one…ie, comparing it to games that folks feel are more faithful to what they hoped it would be. But that is likely an oversimplification.

I mentioned somewhere else that Act 1 reminds me most of the escape from Irenicus' dungeon, with everything possibly coming to a head at Moonrise. I think I feel that way because the initial dungeon crawl is a very on-rails segment of that game (as you might expect in the beginning).

Everything in the Grove area is very fun and interesting, there are a number of ways to resolve the grove-tiefling-goblin conflict but I still don't feel the same kind of gratification I did in Baldur's Gate discovering things while trudging through the Terra Incognita, nor the sense of activity and possibility that could be found in every nook and cranny of Athkatla in BG:II. I don't know why that is, there's hours of quests and NPCs to find in the EA, I wonder if my perspective is skewed now because of how much time I've played in it.

The EA isn't really about giving us a feel for the game, it's about testing encounters and finding broken features, so I feel most of the 'comparison' threads are premature; but what do I know.

Another factor is how much you see being set up in EA, that will pay-off later, leaving you with a lot of things to speculate on.

BG1 and BG2 have multiplayer. BG3 have multiplayer cooperative up to maximum 4 players. There is nothing wrong playing solo games. Well even I that will play with my brother and a friend will also play single player BG3.
This because it can be difficult to agree with other people when to play. Well and most likely I will not play exactly same Class in my single player and multiplayer in BG3.

Well since old BG1 and BG2 games did not support PvP multiplayer I do not think BG3 need to have PvP.

You Tuco lol hate all MMO games World of Warcraft MMO, Final Fantasy IV MMO, Neverwinter MMO and in future release date Ashes of Creation MMO. Those MMO games can give PvP.
Well not that I am against PvP as I have said for example Neverwinter Nights 1 support PvP in multiplayer and why I want to play Ashes of Creation upcoming MMO is mainly due to the PvP content. If Larian or Owlcat would suddenly decide their games will have PvP multiplayer I would be surprised, but I would accept that.

Well and have I never been very negatively against Pillars of Eternity 1 and 2. No I played them and consider them 8/10 very good games. Unfortunately POE1 &POE2, Solasta, Pathfinder 1 and Pathfinder 2 do not support multiplayer. Solasta looks ugly however POE1 and POE2 characters do not look ugly and you can even change character portraits if you want to do that. That is impossible in Solasta. Solasta generate the character portrait from their ugly 3D dolls.
In Pathfinder games you can also change the character portrait which is good. That is impossible in Solasta and I know you are fan of Solasta.

However since BG1 and BG2 supported multiplayer, but never supported PvP it would be enough for me if Pathfinder games would support at least cooperative multiplayer play that would be very nice improvement.

Gotta agree with Terminator on this. Lack of Multiplayer is fail. Glad there is somebody besides me that is an advocate for strong multiplayer in RPG's and BG3.


Any RPG that has multiplayer > any RPG that doesn't.

And hey, nothing against single player, but my experience has been that multiplayer comes significantly closer to replicating a TT experience.

Also - and this is just a personal opinion - I think that multiplayer leads to a healthier gaming environment when you interact with other human beings. I am not saying that the single player nation is a bunch of weird anti-social trolls that hide from sunlight and feast on human flesh but there is an unhealthy side to gaming that lack of human contact exacerbates.

Gamer toxicity is a thing - and while I don't agree with the crowd that likes to blame video games for everything bad that happens in the world - I also think that its important to have a healthy relationship with them.

Its really unfortunate that Owlcat didn't take the extra time to implement multiplayer.

Wrath of the Righteous (the game, not the module) is written specifically as a single player cRPG: Mythics has been modified to suit a single player campaign of 1 player + their followers. You are the commander of an army with super powers which by association your followers gain some measure of these powers: its not a group of adventurers, and while the 1 person in charge + their followers can work in TT session, the entire plot has been modified to prioritise the single player RPG experience, and it does it very well.

That makes any idea of multiplayer, beyond the obvious difficulties in implementing it, at odds with how the story has been laid out and how the Mythic mechanics have been designed for the game.

edit: whoops, this sounds like im being dismissive, what im trying to say is that owlcat have gone down a route of writing specifically for a single player experience, while in contrast larian's writiers are clearly intending for plot-congruence in both both single and multiplayer: everyone gets a tadpole style.

The thing is BG1 was also optimized for a single player experience. Only the 1st player was the Bhaalspawn and everyone else was a support character on that main quest when you played multiplayer.

Its a stylistic difference that I've never had a problem with as long as you know what you are getting into.

Larian takes a different tack of allowing everyone to have a shot at that shiny brass ring with how they structure their games. As in DOS2 where we end up competing. I think the same may occur in Bg3 where there is a degree of competition in Multiplayer? Maybe?

Strong disagree with this. A well designed single-player rpg can easily be better than a multiplayer rpg. Especially when said multiplayer rpgs don't do a great job of including everyone in dialogue/etc

Obviously, if developers made a game and then just adds on multiplayer, the game becomes strictly better. But unfortunately, developers often remove focus on the single-player experience to emphasize the multiplayer: take Larian's reasoning that a day-night-cycle would be too complicated given multiplayer. Quote from a writer: "We're playing a multiplayer game and day and night multiplayer cycles are incredibly complicated."

Lol. I always laugh at the notion that SP is a “lone weirdo” type of exercise. Especially in a gaming forum where we are all discussing our individual experiences with games. Lmfao.

SP versus MP is a tired argument. It is like the difference between reading a book alone and then discussing alternate interpretations with friends versus watching a movie adaptation with friends in real time. The former leads to a deep understanding of the story and a personal connection with the writing, the latter a fun experience with pals complete with unique memories and convos to deepen friendships. Both can have very social components depending on how you approach them. If that is what you dig. And even if u don’t dig other gamers — Reading a book or playing a SP game for your own pleasure is NOT some symptom of the maladjusted. Jaysus. What utter tripe.


I have no idea why people insist on comparing and ranking these two completely different (yet often complementary when it comes to gaming) experiences. Unless massive resources are being siphoned from one experience to facilitate another that is not your preference, it is a moot point.

Hey, I didn't call you Single Players 'lone weirdos" - I may have thought it, you may have heard it, but I never said it. :P

Its NOT like I am saying you are all Renfield type characters eating random insects you find and making slurp slurp noises all day which hiding in darkened basements! (tongue-in-cheek)

Anyway. I get that Single Players outnumber the Multiplayer gang. And frankly Single player in Bg3 is worth it, gives you time to go slow and read everything. In multiplayer you are too busy bathing in the blood of your enemies (ie. everyone else) and stealing everything not nailed down to really get into that.

"Do these books explode? Then I don't want them!"

All I am saying is that having both experiences is the better way to go, especially when it comes to long term viability. The Multiplayer crowd in NWN lasted much longer than the single player crowd, and I would argue that's what made it such a classic and well-loved/remembered game.

Saying the likes of Mass Effect Andromeda and DOS1 are better than 95% of RPGs is pretty based. Wrong, yeah, but based. I respect it.

I like it best when everyone works together in multiplayer, so I hope that is an option as well.

I also play BG3 both single player and multiplayer. Both are great!

Thank you I agree with you! I would understand if some players do not like PvP. With that logic all do not like PvP I said make it multiplayer cooperative like BG1, BG2 and BG3. Those who want to play single gamers still could do it. Well and saying no is trolling. With that logic Is could start posting please do not add more subclasses to BG3. They got enough money with all who bought it. To add cooperative multiplayer to Pathfinder would be super nice. POE 1, 2 and Solasta also fails with this. What is worse Solasta made dumb game why use ugly dolls 3D characters and then generate character from them so it is impossible to change characters portraits in Solasta. At least Pathfinder and POE games did not make that mistake you can change the portrait pictures of your characters.

Gah! Loved that image! Lol

I mean…I do not feel that MP only fans are vacuous frat-boy wannabees who cultivate online gaming communities to achieve some semblance of connection and fill the hole of existential dread buried deep within their hyper-cool facades—-that almost inescapable voice whispering to them that they are unimportant and unloved. That would be cruel.


Totally kidding—-I play MP stuff too. So I could not possibly think that. And it is all two sides of the same coin anyway.

*Wipes brow*

*quickly searches discord*

*sees no one online*

*wonders how long till next game*

*panic swells in chest, filling soul with the screech of a dark, unforgiving bird…a mocking…cruel…vulture*

*taps fingers on desk impatiently*

*curses under breath*

*checks lifeless phone*

*loads up SP campaign to pass the seemingly endless time, which by now has become a Lovecraftian horror*

*realizes gaming pals have finally abandoned me to pursue real life*

*sees insect crawling on table*

*embraces true self*

It was inspired for sure, but it didn't prevent it from being a completely original game. There are so many new ideas in DE in so many different aspects that puts the game in its own category. Wasteland 1 was an inspiration for Fallout 1 and you can see the connection across many different areas, yet I would still consider Fallout 1 an original game. DE is even further away from PST than FO1 is to Wasteland 1.


Yes, I mentioned something similar in another thread. It seems Larian is using Dragon Age as a reference instead of the orginal BGs. I rarely see Swen mentioning the originals, they market the game as a new 5E D&D game.

Yep, thats fair enough. The differences in power between the MC and their followers is far more that in Baldurs Gate however - with lots of extra feats and powers above and beyond what the other players would receive. Maybe Owlcat will consider making a SP+MP pathfinder game if WotR is successful, though it is a considerable investment for a small studio to offer MP.

I thought that Bioware's triumph with Baldur's Gate 1 and especially 2 is creating an RPG campaign structure tailor for singleplayer experience and by creating "companions" they added table-top-with-other-players flavour in an appropriate computer setting.

Personally, I like my RPGs singleplayer. I am playing RPGs mostly for story and engaging narrative, and other human players go against it. There are multiplayer games I do enjoy, but I have far bigger appreciation for quality singleplayer games. Table-tops and boardgames for spending evening with friends, singleplayer computer games for lone evenings, competitive online games with no access to voice chat, and limited/no access to chat for multiplayer with randos.

That's cool that there is market for games like Neverwinter Nights1 or Divinity: Original Sin1&2.



I don't mind multiplayer like in BG1&2. I do mind multiplayer like in D:OS1&2 and BG3.

Different designs are needed for a quality singleplayer and multiplayer. By the very nature engagement with content is different. A good example is Don't Starve and Don't Starve: Together. Klei likes making good game, so with strong market for multipler Don't Starve they created a seperate experience rather then adding multiplayer to Don't Starve. Playing Don't Starve by yourself wouldn't quite work, and playing Don't Starve: Together by yourself wouldn't quite work.

Baldur's Gate1&2 were Dont' Starve with added multiplayer. Divinity: Original Sin1&2 are Don't Starve together that you can play by yourself.

[BG3 is in weird mid place - It does make a far bigger effort in making a better singleplayer experience - there is far more singleplayer centric content in the game this time around - I appreciate all that. But there are compromises - companions are torn between being companions and cool playable characters, making them IMO rather uncompelling when compared to last 20 years of competition. Protagonist writing is not teribly strong, as it will have to fill roles of Tavs and Origin companions. A lot of ease of use things missing as expererience will change depending if it's singleplayer or multiplayer exprience. Handy multiplayer easy of use features like "send to xxxxxx"/turn-based bubble etc. create awkward exploits when one player is in charge of everything]

I am very glad Owlcat did not waste its limited resources on MP. Just like with full VO and fancy graphics, so too with MP, it is something a game can have if the budget is huge and so won't harm or take away from the really important parts of the game (which absolutely includes a stellar SP experience). But if one's budget is limited and there will be trade-offs, things like MP, VO, and fancy graphics are precisely what should be de-prioritized.

Ahahaha! This is great!

I mean you are right about the knuckle-dragging frat boyish behavior.


Typical MP session dialogue:

"Hey guys, watch me Thunderwave this stupid tiefling bard off the cliff"

BOOM!

"Lolerkek! Awesome dude, yeah she sucks."

"Dude, Chad, my dad owns a dealership."

"Right on bro"

Thanks fun reading. With Kani logic I can start posting thank you Larian lets not add more races or subclasses that is a waste of budget hehee really I could do that. I am against any stuff outside of PHB and I would not cry if every class get maximum 2 subclasses.