Game News Baldur's Gate 3 Community Update #11: Patch 3 - Inspiration, Freedom & Pacifism

[Dr Schultz]

Some excellent rpgs came out recently, and I am still absolutely hooked in Thea 2 and replaying Kingmaker with turn based, so I won't play this patch as much. It wipes my progress anyway. But not a single change made here is bad, and half of them were quite literally critical to making this game not shit anymore. It should easily surpass Dragon Age Origins in it's current state (which is not a high bar to pass) and settle comfortably a notch below Kingmaker. An excellent space to be in for an AAA rpg.

Ouf, the heresy. But I guess one of the few things in which DA:O isn't better than P:K is in the depth of the combat system, and that's all that matters around here, eh?

Don't know. I'd say what REALLY matters around here is the amount of character builds available.
Then follows the amount of playstyles actually supported by the game (which somewhat puzzles me, considering that you should want more character builds in order to support more playstyles and not the other way around).
The depth of the combat system comes only third, judging by how discussions about combat are usually conducted (poorely).
The depth of exploration, stealth, dialogues and the other "ancillary" systems are barely considered.
Story and narrative are the less important factors. Unless they are goofy. In this case they can ruin even a masterfully designed game in the mind of the average codexian.
Fundamental principles of game design such as variety in kind and intensity, difficulty curves, gameplay loops, co-reinforcement between different game systems, etc... aren't even considered (despite being what REALLY makes the difference between a good game and a bad game with good ideas).

Of course there are lots of noticeable exceptions to this general rule. But this is the trend.

PS: And this isn't particularly surprising either. You can link the enormous success of P&P RPGS such as D&D and Pathfinder to the same basic principle. They are firstly and mostly playgrounds for powerplayers.

 

[JDR13]

Some excellent rpgs came out recently, and I am still absolutely hooked in Thea 2 and replaying Kingmaker with turn based, so I won't play this patch as much. It wipes my progress anyway. But not a single change made here is bad, and half of them were quite literally critical to making this game not shit anymore. It should easily surpass Dragon Age Origins in it's current state (which is not a high bar to pass) and settle comfortably a notch below Kingmaker. An excellent space to be in for an AAA rpg.

Ouf, the heresy. But I guess one of the few things in which DA:O isn't better than P:K is in the depth of the combat system, and that's all that matters around here, eh?

I see you've got your Bioware nostalgia googles on.

 

[Thac0]

Don't know. I'd say what REALLY matters around here is the amount of character builds available.
Then follows the amount of playstyles actually supported by the game (which somewhat puzzles me, considering that you should want more character builds in order to support more playstyles and not the other way around).

Sounds logical to me. Even when a game doesn't really support a playstyle in it's mechanics, like VTMB not really being balanced around gun or Nosferatu builts, they are far from unplayable. Having some unsupported playstyles increases the replayability of a game greatly, and clearing a game on high difficulty with a built that is not supported by the game mechanics at all is cool. There is a reason Pink Eye tries to Ironman Kingmaker on unfair with Monks, playing the underdog is always more fun than following the herd.

If I get you right that is and you say: More possible playstyles > more good playstiles

 

[Dr Schultz]

Don't know. I'd say what REALLY matters around here is the amount of character builds available.
Then follows the amount of playstyles actually supported by the game (which somewhat puzzles me, considering that you should want more character builds in order to support more playstyles and not the other way around).

Sounds logical to me. Even when a game doesn't really support a playstyle in it's mechanics, like VTMB not really being balanced around gun or Nosferatu builts, they are far from unplayable. Having some unsupported playstyles increases the replayability of a game greatly, and clearing a game on high difficulty with a built that is not supported by the game mechanics at all is cool. There is a reason Pink Eye tries to Ironman Kingmaker on unfair with Monks, playing the underdog is always more fun than following the herd.

If I get you right that is and you say: More possible playstyles > more good playstiles

Yes and no. As long as a you can beat a game with a particular playstyle, I consider this playstyle supported. Sure, it can be LESS supported than other playstyles (meaning it provides a less balanced/fun/bug free experience) but IF it is viable, I have no problem with that.
I DO have problems, though, when a game allows you to build characters that will never see the end credits for the sake of expanding your options. Or when you got two or more options that in practice work exactly the same.
This second issue makes me often think that CRPGs should learn a lesson or two from beat 'em ups in how to differentiate their "rosters".

 

[gulagdandy]

Don't know. I'd say what REALLY matters around here is the amount of character builds available.
Then follows the amount of playstyles actually supported by the game (which somewhat puzzles me, considering that you should want more character builds in order to support more playstyles and not the other way around).

Sounds logical to me. Even when a game doesn't really support a playstyle in it's mechanics, like VTMB not really being balanced around gun or Nosferatu builts, they are far from unplayable. Having some unsupported playstyles increases the replayability of a game greatly, and clearing a game on high difficulty with a built that is not supported by the game mechanics at all is cool. There is a reason Pink Eye tries to Ironman Kingmaker on unfair with Monks, playing the underdog is always more fun than following the herd.

If I get you right that is and you say: More possible playstyles > more good playstiles

I don't understand the fascination with replayability. There are thousands of games out there, to say nothing of books, movies, and--so I've been told--an outisde world. Why would I want to play the same game twice? Even if I do, and even if allowing for replayability is a "good to have", surely having a good first experience is more important than being able to play through a number of times with different builds?

 

[Melcar]

Don't know. I'd say what REALLY matters around here is the amount of character builds available.
Then follows the amount of playstyles actually supported by the game (which somewhat puzzles me, considering that you should want more character builds in order to support more playstyles and not the other way around).

Sounds logical to me. Even when a game doesn't really support a playstyle in it's mechanics, like VTMB not really being balanced around gun or Nosferatu builts, they are far from unplayable. Having some unsupported playstyles increases the replayability of a game greatly, and clearing a game on high difficulty with a built that is not supported by the game mechanics at all is cool. There is a reason Pink Eye tries to Ironman Kingmaker on unfair with Monks, playing the underdog is always more fun than following the herd.

If I get you right that is and you say: More possible playstyles > more good playstiles

I don't understand the fascination with replayability. There are thousands of games out there, to say nothing of books, movies, and--so I've been told--an outisde world. Why would I want to play the same game twice? Even if I do, and even if allowing for replayability is a "good to have", surely having a good first experience is more important than being able to play through a number of times with different builds?

Why not both? A good first experience and be able to play a number of times with different builds? Some people like that in their games.

 

[Thac0]

Don't know. I'd say what REALLY matters around here is the amount of character builds available.
Then follows the amount of playstyles actually supported by the game (which somewhat puzzles me, considering that you should want more character builds in order to support more playstyles and not the other way around).

Sounds logical to me. Even when a game doesn't really support a playstyle in it's mechanics, like VTMB not really being balanced around gun or Nosferatu builts, they are far from unplayable. Having some unsupported playstyles increases the replayability of a game greatly, and clearing a game on high difficulty with a built that is not supported by the game mechanics at all is cool. There is a reason Pink Eye tries to Ironman Kingmaker on unfair with Monks, playing the underdog is always more fun than following the herd.

If I get you right that is and you say: More possible playstyles > more good playstiles

I don't understand the fascination with replayability. There are thousands of games out there, to say nothing of books, movies, and--so I've been told--an outisde world. Why would I want to play the same game twice? Even if I do, and even if allowing for replayability is a "good to have", surely having a good first experience is more important than being able to play through a number of times with different builds?

For me it is less about replayability than it is about customisation and uniqueness. What is the point of playing an interactive medium, a video game, if your experience will be 99% the same as that of all other users?
More builts and more possible party comps mean that the possibility of someone having the exact same party as me, even theoretically, shrinks to close to zero.

My Pathfinder party atm is a Stormwalker Ranger, a two handed Fighter, a Crusader Cleric, a Feyspeaker Druid, a Summoning focussed Wizard and a regular dual wielding rogue with rapier and short sword. It is close to mathematically impossible that someone has the exact same party and the exact same experience as me, even if some of those classes are very popular. And that alone improves the experience for me.

Dragon Age Origins has very little of that - Since you do not have mercenary type characters which can be fully customised beyond your MC and your MC has only the choice between 3 classes. Also classes have different ways to built them, but generally not enough to make up for that. My final party was Mage MC (Insect Swarm spell line + Ice), Leliana Archer, Morrigan generic witch, Alistair generic Sword and Board, a party that probably thousands of people have experienced the game with.

So yeah party building and character building is all about creatively expressing your character, a feature that is usually unique to video games. Card games have it aswell, I love deckbuilding.
It raises replayability to absurdity as a random side effect mostly.

 

[Burning Bridges]

Don't know. I'd say what REALLY matters around here is the amount of character builds available.
Then follows the amount of playstyles actually supported by the game (which somewhat puzzles me, considering that you should want more character builds in order to support more playstyles and not the other way around).

Sounds logical to me. Even when a game doesn't really support a playstyle in it's mechanics, like VTMB not really being balanced around gun or Nosferatu builts, they are far from unplayable. Having some unsupported playstyles increases the replayability of a game greatly, and clearing a game on high difficulty with a built that is not supported by the game mechanics at all is cool. There is a reason Pink Eye tries to Ironman Kingmaker on unfair with Monks, playing the underdog is always more fun than following the herd.

If I get you right that is and you say: More possible playstyles > more good playstiles

I don't understand the fascination with replayability. There are thousands of games out there, to say nothing of books, movies, and--so I've been told--an outisde world. Why would I want to play the same game twice? Even if I do, and even if allowing for replayability is a "good to have", surely having a good first experience is more important than being able to play through a number of times with different builds?

"shallow" is thy name

 

[Morality Games]

Don't know. I'd say what REALLY matters around here is the amount of character builds available.
Then follows the amount of playstyles actually supported by the game (which somewhat puzzles me, considering that you should want more character builds in order to support more playstyles and not the other way around).

Sounds logical to me. Even when a game doesn't really support a playstyle in it's mechanics, like VTMB not really being balanced around gun or Nosferatu builts, they are far from unplayable. Having some unsupported playstyles increases the replayability of a game greatly, and clearing a game on high difficulty with a built that is not supported by the game mechanics at all is cool. There is a reason Pink Eye tries to Ironman Kingmaker on unfair with Monks, playing the underdog is always more fun than following the herd.

If I get you right that is and you say: More possible playstyles > more good playstiles

I don't understand the fascination with replayability.

Outside world and endless media do exist and that is what it is, but replayability is sort of the litmus test of whether a game is actually well designed or not. Shallow games alleviate boredom and are basically disposable/interchangeable, but a game you can come back and play and discover new experiences and approaches again and again is a thing of true beauty. You can cultivate a give-and-take relationship and a sense of familiarity with such a game (as you might a person) over the years and experience genuine depth and complexity in way say most mobile games don't provide, revisiting and cultivating the experience of a game again and again until it almost becomes part of your identity and sense of self (as friends and family might). It is telling, for example, that I use a Geneforge avatar as the "face" that represents myself to the RPG community I participate in.

Take the various regional forms of chess, for example. There's always a deeper level to the game that can be endlessly delved into, and discovering these new layers of complexity can create the same sense of awe as discovering a new continent or planet.

Endless amounts of media (regardless of how quality it is) and outside world (no matter how beautiful) can't really change that.

Although

Spoiler

As with relationships with people, such connections and sense of a familiarity with a game carry the inherent risk of stagnation