I'm still checking in and reading, and still test, compile and submit reports and feedback - I'm just engaging less and trying not to get myself bogged down in arguments and overly-trodden paths again and again, here. I mostly try to encourage a more positive tone for discussion wherever I notice it getting too... unproductive, let's say; everyone's got their opinion, and we don't all agree with one another, but we can all make an effort to be polite and respectful regardless, and it'll make it easier on everyone if we all do.
That said, yes - my enthusiasm is dampened a lot, compared to the early days, and I am a lot more jaded about the prospects for this game than I was to begin with.
All the old threads that talk in depth about the details of these things are all still there... it's just difficult to convince each new wave of forum guests and newer posters to read through it all, so we're often left giving the short hand version of it, which, in turn, many newcomers don't find as convincing as the full, detailed analytical explanations... so it can lead too said newer voices seeing many of us as being unfair or needlessly hostile towards Larian. I understand why it happens, but there isn't a good solution, really - we can't expect every new forum member to read through everything, and most of us don't have the stamina or energy to repeat what's already been said exhaustively enough to show new faces that, for the most part, we do actually know what we're talking about.
All the old threads that talk in depth about the details of these things are all still there... it's just difficult to convince each new wave of forum guests and newer posters to read through it all, so we're often left giving the short hand version of it, which, in turn, many newcomers don't find as convincing as the full, detailed analytical explanations... so it can lead too said newer voices seeing many of us as being unfair or needlessly hostile towards Larian. I understand why it happens, but there isn't a good solution, really - we can't expect every new forum member to read through everything, and most of us don't have the stamina or energy to repeat what's already been said exhaustively enough to show new faces that, for the most part, we do actually know what we're talking about.
Why not make a FAQ then? You could have a summary and link to the threads or posts. Maybe Larian would even read it.
I have avoided the Early Release because I know that I would feel disappointed with it, now matter how good it really is.
Imagine this: "I have a new game I am working on called CHESS. But before I release the full version, I am going to put out an early release version which will have just a King, a Bishop, and two Pawns for each player. And the board will be only one-quarter the size that of the full game. Enjoy!"
Imagine this: "I have a new game I am working on called CHESS. But before I release the full version, I am going to put out an early release version which will have just a King, a Bishop, and two Pawns for each player. And the board will be only one-quarter the size that of the full game. Enjoy!"
Just for the record ... How exactly do you think Chess was created?
I mean, you realize that some rules were added "after" first release, right? That we dont play the exactly same Chess as first person ever did ... right?
I still dont understand why cant we change Race for our hirelings. Lets us play Githyanki as racist as they trully are!
Imagine this: "I have a new game I am working on called CHESS. But before I release the full version, I am going to put out an early release version which will have just a King, a Bishop, and two Pawns for each player. And the board will be only one-quarter the size that of the full game. Enjoy!"
Just for the record ... How exactly do you think Chess was created?
I mean, you realize that some rules were added "after" first release, right? That we dont play the exactly same Chess as first person ever did ... right?
My favorite Chess book is "Chess: First Steps" by Bott & Morrison, (c) 1958. It has some particularly wicked illustrations by Patricia Lindsay which are quite memorable. Anyway, the authors state, "It was first played in India, and from there traveled across mountains and valleys to the great Persian Empire. The Arabs conquered Persia, and in their travels brought the game to the rest of Europe through Spain."
I think the India "Chaturanga" version included elephant regiments, which are very cool! And there are rumors that they originally also used random dice rolls to determine which piece got moved in each round ... whoa, wait a minute, that sounds like the D&D precursor "Chainmail" ... could it be that D&D is based on a revival of the original Chess wargame concept? Yeah, I guess after 1400 or so years I would expect to see one or two changes. I don't know if there is any historical evidence of an "early release", however.
I heard that India abandoned the chainmail precursor when they realized that nobody understood the attack of opportunity rules. Taking turns is much simpler.
I'm not sure Larian could do a chess like game though. How would they work in exploding barrels?
People have basically been bypassing the Chessboard Challenge in Durlag's Tower by exploding things for the last 2 decades lol. Exploding chess would be an homage at this point.
I'm not sure Larian could do a chess like game though. How would they work in exploding barrels?
People have basically been bypassing the Chessboard Challenge in Durlag's Tower by exploding things for the last 2 decades lol. Exploding chess would be an homage at this point.
Web/cloudkill/fireball is such a better option. You don't even have to move
My favorite Chess book is "Chess: First Steps" by Bott & Morrison, (c) 1958. It has some particularly wicked illustrations by Patricia Lindsay which are quite memorable. Anyway, the authors state, "It was first played in India, and from there traveled across mountains and valleys to the great Persian Empire. The Arabs conquered Persia, and in their travels brought the game to the rest of Europe through Spain."
I think the India "Chaturanga" version included elephant regiments, which are very cool! And there are rumors that they originally also used random dice rolls to determine which piece got moved in each round ... whoa, wait a minute, that sounds like the D&D precursor "Chainmail" ... could it be that D&D is based on a revival of the original Chess wargame concept? Yeah, I guess after 1400 or so years I would expect to see one or two changes. I don't know if there is any historical evidence of an "early release", however.
Chaturanga was invented specifically on the orders of the king to provide a battlefield simulator for him. So if D&D is supposed to be like Chaturanga/chess, then is it just a battlefield sim? I ask because I personally have ZERO interest in sim games (and of course as someone who's been playing D&D since the early 90s, do NOT consider D&D to be anything even close to a combat sim game).
Gygax, Perren, and Arneson and many others were originally involved with the "Chainmail: Rules for Medieval Miniatures" wargame at first. Chainmail had a dice roll system for determining combat probabilities, sort of the like the game "Risk" but on a more detailed level. They used it to simulate historical battles, and then when that got boring, they started making up new scenarios. Then they added the "Fantasy Supplement" to bring in magic and mythical monsters, and that got a lot of people excited. You can still find some of these old documents online in the archives.
Gygax and crew then started the new concept of a roleplaying adventure game which used the combat & magic mechanics extracted from Chainmail. They added the player character, dungeon master, and story concepts, etc., and D&D was born.
So in a way, you could consider that BG III has really been in development for 1400 years. I know it sure seems that way for me right now, geez when is this game gonna be released in full?
I am not sure where you get the impression from - from the very reveal cinematics were as they are now.
No. At first, the game was only going to have cinematics at select (important) dialogue and standard voiced interactions otherwise. Some time into EA, they announced they decided to go ahead and have cinematics for every scene.
Originally Posted by Saito Hikari
Yeah, I don't really talk much on these forums anymore because everything that needed to be argued has already been stated. It's actually been a whole year since we've had major debates on the absence of reactions most of all, and like nothing has really happened on that front besides an assurance from about half a year ago saying that they're supposedly working on it. Meanwhile the cinematic stuff has been a focus in every patch. I've pretty much increasingly distanced myself from the community, seeing the discourse around this game distilled into its present state along with the overall messaging seemingly being so unfocused and increasingly filled with buzzwords as is. I mean I already bought the EA and don't regret it as I know full well what I was getting into, but I'd highly discourage against a day 1 purchase with the pre-release Cyberpunk level vibes that I'm sensing from everything associated with this game now. And I'm not talking about bugs and stuff being unfinished on release (which DOS2's last act clearly was on release), I'm talking about deep fundamental flaws present in the actual gameplay that would take a definitive edition to address, if they are even acknowledged at all.
They've deliberately avoided implementing the classes highly reliant on a working reaction choice-based system so far, to the point where the last couple of classes implemented have been accurately predicted months ahead of time by some of the most pessimist people on these forums. One would think reactions are a high priority to work something out to test, but one also has to wonder if the reason for this isn't so much that they need time to figure something out, but... Because the coding base for this game can't actually handle reactions, and any possible solution is being delayed because development on the actual gameplay is seemingly taking a complete back seat to this cinematic focus. A mod on these forums gave me shit a year ago for insinuating such a thing about the engine, but again, it has been a year since then and we've barely had whispers on something that's clearly a major issue for a lot of people following this game.
I don't even have a horse in the whole 'not like BG1 or BG2' race as I haven't played either game. But in the game's current direction, I'm sure it'll make for a wonderful first playthrough. But it wouldn't be something I'd bother replaying, as I discovered during each attempt to replay the EA and found that the moment to moment gameplay was... Off and feeling like an absolute slog as a consequence, somehow. The combat is heavily focused on offense since a lot of the defensive tools present in 5E such as reactions aren't in the game, and may not even be implemented at all. On the other side of the spectrum, it lacks the environmental reactivity and build variety that DOS2 had. In the months leading up to DOS2's release, you had people swearing up and down that it was the ultimate proof that turn-based combat still had a place in the gaming industry, and it would herald the beginning of that combat style being embraced by the industry once more, which it arguably did. BG3? A blip on the radar in an industry dominated by other studios far more experienced with story and cinematics. The camp that values gameplay over story/writing seems rather tepid about this game, but the story-craving camp (or well, the camp that likes this style of writing and cinematic focus) seems to be loving this.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that hedging the majority of effort into the writing and cinematics at the expense of the moment to moment gameplay is a BAD long term idea. We've seen plenty of examples of other games that had done exactly this and failed. They still sold a lot due to hype culture, but no one heralds them as masterpieces. Coincidentally, all of them are plagued by stories coming out years later of troubled development that broke the development studios in some way.
Maybe the sooner we accept that the game is meant to be this way and move on, the better off we'll all be for it. A dozen forumers arguing in circles holds little sway in development, compared to the tide of people that will judge the game upon full release. Only then will we see if we were more than people making delusional rants. Not that anyone who thought we were only here to be mean to Larian would admit to that.
All the people who were really driving for constructive, positive change gave up. They did address some of the issues, but only to introduce other problematic ones that negated the good they've done.
The camping system didn't actually change people being able to unlimited rest, it just made food not heal you in combat. They changed disengage to a full action, only to introduce other broken action economy items/skills/equips.
You get the point.
Supposedly, this game is coming out in a year and they can't seem to release more than one class at a time with a lot of bugs and issues throughout each release. The last 3 have to have some sort of reaction input, but are they really going to trickle out 3 more individual patches and then release the game in a year?
Moreover, who in their right mind would play this game Day 1 of release? I played DOS2 like that and it was a janky, awful mess once you left Fort Joy - numerous crash to desktop with no errors, broken quests, bugged interactions, and the overall feeling the game was rushed and incomplete. It made for an awful experience as an owner of the game.
For one, I saw the end of the game so the subsequent playthroughs were no longer new but I didn't get to experience everything I could have.
Most of the people that had good ideas and really tried to have good discourse and dialogue for Larian to consider/implement have given up. Even with these patch releases, the game activity spikes for 72 hours max and then it's barely any coverage on Twitch or YouTube.
People are over it and if (when) Larian botches the release of this thing, it's going to turn into a total shitshow.
i kind of dislike being a silent protagonist with this cinematic thing. also i agree with majority of the poster here on the constructive criticism on the bg3 development. i hope larian will address them.
