Larian Banner: Baldur's Gate Patch 9
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 12 of 105 1 2 10 11 12 13 14 104 105
Joined: May 2021
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: May 2021
These are all straw man arguments in the extreme.

“Game not as good as BG3 because it has no multiplayer.
Game is a joke because all single player games must be compared to TW3, and thus will always fail.
Therefore, BG3 wins! “

Methinks your math is flawed.

I for one am extremely happy to have a diversity of video games that are not cookie-cutter copies of each other.

Joined: Dec 2020
Location: Finland
T
Banned
Offline
Banned
T
Joined: Dec 2020
Location: Finland
Originally Posted by timebean
These are all straw man arguments in the extreme.

“Game not as good as BG3 because it has no multiplayer.
Game is a joke because all single player games must be compared to TW3, and thus will always fail.
Therefore, BG3 wins! “

Methinks your math is flawed.

I for one am extremely happy to have a diversity of video games that are not cookie-cutter copies of each other.
Your opinion not mine. Well of course everyone has right to their own opinion. Well and regarding BG3 full review is a bit difficult before full release and that is not any time soon. While Pathfinder 2 pathetic as single player compared to single player Witcher 3 will be released already in September 2021. OP made some impression though of not good things in BG3 that certainly is not the case in Witcher 3. Lets not discuss those things. However Witcher 3 has rightly so for many reasons 18 years age rating and still manage to sell over 35 million. If nothing else then on content regarding age rating over 35 million buyers disagreed with SerraSerra in that specific regard at least of allowed content in games and age rating. If Witcher 3 would do as SerraSerra want its age rating would be to my guess roughly 12 or 13 and not 18.

Last edited by Terminator2020; 18/08/21 12:06 PM.
Joined: Aug 2020
veteran
Online Content
veteran
Joined: Aug 2020
Originally Posted by Terminator2020
Originally Posted by timebean
These are all straw man arguments in the extreme.

“Game not as good as BG3 because it has no multiplayer.
Game is a joke because all single player games must be compared to TW3, and thus will always fail.
Therefore, BG3 wins! “

Methinks your math is flawed.

I for one am extremely happy to have a diversity of video games that are not cookie-cutter copies of each other.
Your opinion not mine. Well of course everyone has right to their own opinion. Well and regarding BG3 full review is a bit difficult before full release and that is not any time soon. While Pathfinder 2 pathetic as single player compared to single player Witcher 3 will be released already in September 2021. OP made some impression though of not good things in BG3 that certainly is not the case in Witcher 3. Lets not discuss those things. However Witcher 3 has righly so for many reasons 18 years age rating and still manage to sell over 35 million. If nothing else then on content regarding age rating over 35 million buyers disagreed with SerraSerra in that specific regard at least of allowed content in games and age rating. If Witcher 3 would do as SerraSerra want its age rating would be to my guess roughly 12 or 13 and not 18.

Your argument here is really weird. Who was even talking about age ratings and adult content? Why are you bringing this up now because no one has mentioned that for several pages at least. Also, I think comparing WotR with Witcher 3 is not really a good comparison since they're two different types of game. That's like comparing Baldurs Gate 1 & 2 with Stardew Valley because they both have multiplayer and fantasy elements. They're both trying to evoke different sorts of experience. And calling WotR pathetic compared to Witcher 3 is also just wrong. Again, they're different kinds of games doing different things. If you want to talk about how well they accomplish the different things they set out to do, great, that's an interesting discussion. But it doesn't seem to be the discussion you're trying to have here.

Regarding graphics (another thing that no one was talking about before), firstly, the level of graphics don't matter nearly as much as a game's art direction and art style. In that vein, comparing Witcher 3 with WotR or Solasta is ridiculous because they're going for very different art direction. If anything, you should be comparing those aspects with BG3 since it also seems to be aiming for the high fidelity route Witcher 3 went for. Again, if you want to argue that one achieves its art direction goals better than the other, that's a valid discussion to have, but neither Solasta or WotR are even trying for the same level of fidelity Witcher 3 went for, so comparing them based on raw graphical power is a pointless excercise. Secondly comparing Witcher 3 to Solasta at all is a pointless excercise. That's not even opinion, that's actually a fact. You're comparing the third game in a successful AAA franchise made by an already successful and experienced team to the first attempt of a brand new studio. That's like comparing the latest Tarantino film to a film school project. They're working on such different scales that there's almost nothing to be gained by comparing the two.

Joined: Dec 2020
Location: Finland
T
Banned
Offline
Banned
T
Joined: Dec 2020
Location: Finland
Originally Posted by Gray Ghost
Originally Posted by Terminator2020
Originally Posted by timebean
These are all straw man arguments in the extreme.

“Game not as good as BG3 because it has no multiplayer.
Game is a joke because all single player games must be compared to TW3, and thus will always fail.
Therefore, BG3 wins! “

Methinks your math is flawed.

I for one am extremely happy to have a diversity of video games that are not cookie-cutter copies of each other.
Your opinion not mine. Well of course everyone has right to their own opinion. Well and regarding BG3 full review is a bit difficult before full release and that is not any time soon. While Pathfinder 2 pathetic as single player compared to single player Witcher 3 will be released already in September 2021. OP made some impression though of not good things in BG3 that certainly is not the case in Witcher 3. Lets not discuss those things. However Witcher 3 has righly so for many reasons 18 years age rating and still manage to sell over 35 million. If nothing else then on content regarding age rating over 35 million buyers disagreed with SerraSerra in that specific regard at least of allowed content in games and age rating. If Witcher 3 would do as SerraSerra want its age rating would be to my guess roughly 12 or 13 and not 18.

Your argument here is really weird. Who was even talking about age ratings and adult content? Why are you bringing this up now because no one has mentioned that for several pages at least. Also, I think comparing WotR with Witcher 3 is not really a good comparison since they're two different types of game. That's like comparing Baldurs Gate 1 & 2 with Stardew Valley because they both have multiplayer and fantasy elements. They're both trying to evoke different sorts of experience. And calling WotR pathetic compared to Witcher 3 is also just wrong. Again, they're different kinds of games doing different things. If you want to talk about how well they accomplish the different things they set out to do, great, that's an interesting discussion. But it doesn't seem to be the discussion you're trying to have here.

Regarding graphics (another thing that no one was talking about before), firstly, the level of graphics don't matter nearly as much as a game's art direction and art style. In that vein, comparing Witcher 3 with WotR or Solasta is ridiculous because they're going for very different art direction. If anything, you should be comparing those aspects with BG3 since it also seems to be aiming for the high fidelity route Witcher 3 went for. Again, if you want to argue that one achieves its art direction goals better than the other, that's a valid discussion to have, but neither Solasta or WotR are even trying for the same level of fidelity Witcher 3 went for, so comparing them based on raw graphical power is a pointless excercise. Secondly comparing Witcher 3 to Solasta at all is a pointless excercise. That's not even opinion, that's actually a fact. You're comparing the third game in a successful AAA franchise made by an already successful and experienced team to the first attempt of a brand new studio. That's like comparing the latest Tarantino film to a film school project. They're working on such different scales that there's almost nothing to be gained by comparing the two.
I have not played Patch finder 2 difficult for me saying about its exactly graphics. However Pathfinder 1 certainly did not impressive me with graphics. Pathfinder games does use 2D portraits that can be changed which is impossible in Solasta. Pathfinder wins Solasta graphics but not impressive to me like BG3 and Witcher 3. Well and regarding budget what a waste of budget in Pathfinder 2 to create a strategy game with armies that has nothing to do with DnD. I don't care about leftist idea because it is so low budget we must give it good reviews. It is either good or not. Solasta is so bad that I have my doubts I will finish it. However I admit that I don't believe Pathfinder games will be full of annoying riddles like Solasta and Pathfinder character portraits can be changed which is impossible in Solasta. At one point I had to load an old game in Solasta due to a bug and to forward was not easy when a major bug. Well and then minor bugs in Solasta items disappeared from inventory. Regarding bugs in Pathfinder 2 well lets see when they do full release in September 2021 and professional reviews will be done. I must say it is tempting to me buy Pathfinder 2 and then complan to Kingdom Come what is bad in Pathfinder 2😁. Well and seriously before playing it myself I don't want to give my final opinion about Path finder 2 graphics. However I am not in any hurry or super eager to buy it. If I order it I will not do preorder and I could even wait for discount prices n months after release. Well and what is wierd can always be argued. I find some posts beyond wierd myself what other forum members posts like example Elves must be fat and have beard sounds insane wish to me. Lets not go over who said what if you missed it then let it be so. My point was we really have crystal clear opposite wishes here on forums.

Last edited by Terminator2020; 18/08/21 01:54 PM.
Joined: Mar 2020
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Mar 2020
Say what you want about Baldur's Gate 3, unlike Wrath, I'm sure it will work on lunch.

Joking aside, the only real "weak point" of wrath compared to bg3 is that I don't really like buffinder as a system. But this is a very subjective and personal beef. As someone who played wrath of the righteous a lot (I think I have more than 200 hours already), this game is better at all accounts, except production values that are lower, but I feel like they could catch up if they'll keep doing such great games.

Since we are talking comparison, a lot of people praise Baldur's Gate 3's replayablity, and I call bullshit for many reasons (you can check out my signature for more details). Wrath is more restrictive in the things you can do as a player, but the choices you do have are much much more significant and affect gameplay and story immensely. Writing in general is excellent overall.


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: Dec 2020
Location: Finland
T
Banned
Offline
Banned
T
Joined: Dec 2020
Location: Finland
Originally Posted by Abits
Say what you want about Baldur's Gate 3, unlike Wrath, I'm sure it will work on lunch.

Joking aside, the only real "weak point" of wrath compared to bg3 is that I don't really like buffinder as a system. But this is a very subjective and personal beef. As someone who played wrath of the righteous a lot (I think I have more than 200 hours already), this game is better at all accounts, except production values that are lower, but I feel like they could catch up if they'll keep doing such great games.

Since we are talking comparison, a lot of people praise Baldur's Gate 3's replayablity, and I call bullshit for many reasons (you can check out my signature for more details). Wrath is more restrictive in the things you can do as a player, but the choices you do have are much much more significant and affect gameplay and story immensely. Writing in general is excellent overall.
I am not complaining about Pathfinder 2 replay value other then that you can not play it multiplayer. I know you can even become Lich or Angel believe at least Lich. About Bg3 replayability is difficult from Act 1 alone value it and Alpha with not all base classes released.

Last edited by Terminator2020; 18/08/21 02:22 PM.
Joined: Aug 2021
member
Offline
member
Joined: Aug 2021
BG3 has no sort of management system, Kingdom management on PF1, and now Crusader on PF 2. For this reason alone BG3 already is better for me. Not that I won't play WOTR, it's just that having those mechanics are boring and I hate it and always will.

Joined: Mar 2020
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Mar 2020
Originally Posted by Terminator2020
I am not complaining about Pathfinder 2 replay value other then that you can not play it multiplayer. I know you can wven become Lich or Angel believe at least Lich. About Bg3 replayability is difficult from Act 1 alone and Alpha with not all base classes released.
Multiplayer is not a feature I care about at all. In fact Bg3 would have been much better without it.

Originally Posted by Avallonkao
BG3 has no sort of management system, Kingdom management on PF1, and now Crusader on PF 2. For this reason alone BG3 already is better for me. Not that I won't play WOTR, it's just that having those mechanics are boring and I hate it and always will.
It's literally optional in wrath. You can go to the options and cancel it if you want.


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: Aug 2020
veteran
Online Content
veteran
Joined: Aug 2020
Originally Posted by Terminator2020
I have not played Patch finder 2 difficult for me saying about its exactly graphics. However Pathfinder 1 certainly did not impressive me with graphics. Pathfinder games does use 2D portraits that can be changed which is impossible in Solasta. Pathfinder wins Solasta graphics but not impressive to me like BG3 and Witcher 3. Well and regarding budget what a waste of budget in Pathfinder 2 to create a strategy game with armies that has nothing to do with DnD. I don't care about leftist idea because it is so low budget we must give it good reviews. It is either good or not. Solasta is so bad that I have my doubts I will finish it. However I admit that I don't believe Pathfinder games will be full of annoying riddles like Solasta and Pathfinder character portraits can be changed which is impossible in Solasta. At one point I had to load an old game in Solasta due to a bug and to forward was not easy when a major bug. Well and then minor bugs in Solasta items disappeared from inventory. Regarding bugs in Pathfinder 2 well lets see when they do full release in September 2021 and professional reviews will be done. I must say it is tempting to me buy Pathfinder 2 and then complan to Kingdom Come what is bad in Pathfinder 2😁. Well and seriously before playing it myself I don't want to give my final opinion about Path finder 2 graphics. However I am not in any hurry or super eager to buy it. If I order it I will not do preorder and I could even wait for discount prices n months after release. Well and what is wierd can always be argued. I find some posts beyond wierd myself what other forum members posts like example Elves must be fat and have beard sounds insane wish to me. Lets not go over who said what if you missed it then let it be so. My point was we really have crystal clear opposite wishes here on forums.

I'm gonna move along from this graphics discussion since I think your other points are more worth digging into, on account of you admitting you can't really judge WotR graphics at this point. Regarding judging Solasta, I am not suggesting that because its budget is low we should automatically give it good reviews (and this "leftist notion" thing you mention is ridiculous on its face, that's just plain not a thing. Certainly not in any sort of political sense like you're insinuating). I for one liked Solasta and found it more satisfyint than what I've played of Baldur's Gate quite honestly, but that doesn't mean I think it should automatically be given good reviews. Your comments about annoying puzzles and poor graphics are perfectly valid criticisms even if they didn't bother me personally. There are absolutely problems with it that should be taken into account when talking about it. But acknowledging a game's problems on its own terms isn't the same same as judging it by the standards of a game that's being made on a budget orders of magnitude higher. BG3 is probably spending more on its graphics than the devs had to spend on the entire game. Judging Solasta based on BG3 is, again, like judging a student film based on a Tarantino film. Sure the student film can still be good, or it could still have its own problems, but the best version of what the student film could produce is still going to pale in overall quality compared to even an average version of what Tarantino could produce.

Regarding WotR, it really sounds like you've already decided that it's going to be bad before you've even played it. Your argument is weird to me because you have not, in these last two posts of yours, actually said what you want out of these games. You've just said that you think they're bad for one reason or another. As far as the strategy game stuff, your claim that it's a waste of budget because it's got nothing to do with D&D is extremely closed-minded. You don't have to like it, hell, you don't even have to play it, but you can't say before the game is even released whether or not it's a waste of money. It'll only be a waste of money if the majority of people come back and say that it was bad and not fun. Just because it has nothing to do with D&D doesn't really mean anything as far as quality is concerned. I think you should just steer clear of WotR because it clearly doesn't have what you want from a game like it and you're also clearly not interested in judging it in good faith.

I will also point out that you completely ignored my arguments regarding multiplayer and mythic spells.

Joined: Mar 2020
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Mar 2020
Like Larian don't waste money on useless bullshit all the time


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: Aug 2021
member
Offline
member
Joined: Aug 2021
Originally Posted by Gray Ghost
[quote=Terminator2020] Just because it has nothing to do with D&D doesn't really mean anything as far as quality is concerned..

But from many complaints on this thread isn't this one of the most said things about BG3? because it seems they've made or still are making changes and ppl are complaining? Wouldn't it also apply to BG3 as well? I may have understood it wrongly, if so, just ignore it. But still, I'd say to wait until BG3 is actually out, or at very least finished the EA to compare both games? or with any other game actually. At the current state, how can one say that BG3 or WOTR is better? It will only be based on personal tastes and NOT facts.

Joined: Mar 2020
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Mar 2020
Originally Posted by Avallonkao
Originally Posted by Gray Ghost
[quote=Terminator2020] Just because it has nothing to do with D&D doesn't really mean anything as far as quality is concerned..

But from many complaints on this thread isn't this one of the most said things about BG3? because it seems they've made or still are making changes and ppl are complaining? Wouldn't it also apply to BG3 as well? I may have understood it wrongly, if so, just ignore it. But still, I'd say to wait until BG3 is actually out, or at very least finished the EA to compare both games? or with any other game actually. At the current state, how can one say that BG3 or WOTR is better? It will only be based on personal tastes and NOT facts.
WotR is clearly better at anything other than presentation


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: Aug 2020
veteran
Online Content
veteran
Joined: Aug 2020
Originally Posted by Avallonkao
Originally Posted by Gray Ghost
[quote=Terminator2020] Just because it has nothing to do with D&D doesn't really mean anything as far as quality is concerned..

But from many complaints on this thread isn't this one of the most said things about BG3? because it seems they've made or still are making changes and ppl are complaining? Wouldn't it also apply to BG3 as well? I may have understood it wrongly, if so, just ignore it. But still, I'd say to wait until BG3 is actually out, or at very least finished the EA to compare both games? or with any other game actually. At the current state, how can one say that BG3 or WOTR is better? It will only be based on personal tastes and NOT facts.

I fully agree that this applies to BG3. I just also think that a number of the things that Larian has added to BG3 from outside D&D has been to the game's detriment because the additions don't, in my opinion, mesh well with D&D as a system. This results in a system that feels as though it's fighting against itself. I think some changes, like what Larian has done with the Ranger class and the addition of Seladrine Drow as a subclass, actually work quite well.

As for comparing the two, I feel that the fact Larian has an open Early Access going makes comparisons, even in the current unfinished state, acceptable. Though yeah, holding off on definitive opinions is probably wise.

Joined: Jul 2019
member
Offline
member
Joined: Jul 2019
Originally Posted by Abits
Like Larian don't waste money on useless bullshit all the time
Love your signature. It definitely highlights one of the [many] bigger issues I've found with EA. They seem to take the data from player choices without context and then project their own opinions and insights onto it.

I ate a bagel this morning rather than a steak, egg and cheese, therefore I must be vegan. Well no, I ate all the steak and eggs and my mode of transportation is currently in the shop. It's the same type of projection of choices in BG3. I chose the Tieflings over Minthara, because I like good instead of evil.. Well, actually it's because the writing for the evil side was subpar and the choices made no sense for a character with above 9 intellect.

As for this topic: I didn't buy into the alpha/beta for WotR, but from the bits I've seen and heard it seems substantially better than Baldur's Gate 3 at present. That could certainly change at launch, but there seems to be far more choice, consequences and influence on the world and characters in WotR. And that's just things that can be said without breaking NDA and from multiple paths missing from the game in alpha.

Gameplay, substance, lore, choices and consequences, writing are all significantly more important than cinematics and graphics.

As for Terminator's comparisons to Witcher 3.. lol.. Why do people bother responding ever? After all, Baldur's Gate 3 is clearly such an inferior product because Minecraft sold 238 million copies and GTAV sold over 150 million entirely because they have multiplayer. /s

Joined: Mar 2020
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Mar 2020
I wish Baldur's Gate 3 would have half of the quality of the Witcher 3


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: Aug 2021
member
Offline
member
Joined: Aug 2021
Originally Posted by Abits
I wish Baldur's Gate 3 would have half of the quality of the Witcher 3

Witcher 3 is the most overrated game ever in my opinion. Also, who knows, once the game is done, it may surprise you.

Joined: Mar 2020
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Mar 2020
I doubt it but I can dream.


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: Aug 2021
member
Offline
member
Joined: Aug 2021
Originally Posted by Abits
I doubt it but I can dream.

You doubt it because you already made your decision. So, the most important question is... why still try to be around this game if you don't seem like it?

Joined: Mar 2020
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Mar 2020
I don't need your permission to be here and your gatekeeping and "wait for the full game" approach is the worst way to handle our situation


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: Aug 2021
member
Offline
member
Joined: Aug 2021
Originally Posted by Abits
I don't need your permission to be here and your gatekeeping and "wait for the full game" approach is the worst way to handle our situation

Sigh... if you say so. *Shrugs*

Page 12 of 105 1 2 10 11 12 13 14 104 105

Moderated by  Dom_Larian, Freddo, vometia 

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