Baldur's Gate Baldur's Gate 3 Early Access Thread [GAME RELEASED, GO TO NEW THREAD]

[Ol' Willy]

Imagine thinking BG1 and 2 are good games

What was the good part?
The shitty story?
One of the worst villains in cRPG history?
The terrible encounters?
Making romances a main feature of cRPGs ever since?
The absolute dogshit rape of D&D combat implemented like an RTS which was a fad at the time?
Wait, no, I got it: One of the worst inventories ever implemented in a cRPG.

Oh right, the good part is your nostalgia

I had the impression that you are the resident Bioware fanboy. WTF happened?

 

[Gargaune]

Also, BG1 is great with no nostalgia factored in. I've mentioned this multiple times already, but I never played the BGs as a kid, I played them for the first time the year I joined the 'Dex.

Similar story here, I missed out on the IE games back in the day and only got around to them about five years ago. Went through them over the space of like two years, but I had a fantastic time of it with no nostalgia involved.

 

[ADULF HITLOR FAN KLUB]

Imagine thinking BG1 and 2 are good games

At least BG1 and BG2 haters are perfectly satisfied with BG3.

 

[Catacombs]

Finally gave in and bought it.
Man there's so much good stuff, and even more to complain about, but it's so incomplete it's almost not worth thinking about. People seem to have voiced the most pressing problems by now anyway.

Agreed. I played about three hours and uninstalled it. I'm glad I bought it now, just to have it in my library, but I can't play it in its current form. There are too many issues and why go through a $60 game with a fraction of the content? I like what I saw and will gladly wait for the full release. Meanwhile, I have plenty of games in my backlog to pass the time.

 

[Mebrilia the Viera Queen]

I was skeptical at the beginning as i loved bg1 and 2 but some of the criticism i read is utterly stupid.

1) Oh no is turn based!: Like D&D you know? The source material pen and paper the game is based for?
2) Looks like a divinity original sin clone: Beside the similiar UI that i dislike i don't see many features aside some surface elemental damage.
3)You have a party of four: Well D&D 5ed is designed mainly around a party of four characters.

I do believe turn based won over the old system by far. You have things in this game that while were possible in a pen and paper session in the past D&D game were not possible. Again turn based is the true essence of D&D. Now i can understand who is not in to turn based combat and i would say alright you dislike turn based so i can see your point. But that's about it really.

I enjoyed a lot the early access and to me it felt like a baldurs gate. Of course is far from perfect but i like it.

Unless you expected beamdog to make it in that case you are retarded :D

 

[Sobchak]

I enjoyed a lot the early access and to me it felt like a baldurs gate. Of course is far from perfect but i like it.

I'm happy for you but no, it never felt like a Baldur's Gate game. You can like it, but it doesn't have BG aesthetics, at all. Forget the mechanics and what makes it a better dnd experience. It might even be better at that than its predeccesors but it doesn't have Baldur's Gate aesthetics. It just doesn't. The Baldur's Gate elements are not there. It's not a Baldur's Gate game. Not yet. It can be but it's not. I hope it will though. All of the elements that made the Baldur's Gate games what they are, they're missing on this game. Alright ?

 

[Cleric of Asmodeus]

What are examples of Baldur’s Gate aesthetics?

 

[Sergiu64]

 

[Farewell young Prince into the night]

What are examples of Baldur’s Gate aesthetics?

 

[Nortar]

What are examples of Baldur’s Gate aesthetics?

Well, Beamdog's SoD is related to BG about as much as Larian's DOS 3.
Even their abbreviation are mirrors of each other!

 

[Citizen]

Against plate armor, an sword and an mace are equally effective on dealing damage since 3e...

I disapproved of doing away with the weapon vs armor tables, but every new edition has been all about streamlining pnp play and therefore making it a worse game for cRPG adaptation.

Would RPG devs ever learn?

Big edgy stick - very effective vs flesh, not effective vs armor
Big pointy stick - moderately effective vs flesh and light armor
Big blunt stick - not effective vs flesh, very effective vs heavy armor

See? I fixed your game, %developer%

 

[Cleric of Asmodeus]

Halberd vs anything

 

[Citizen]

Halberd vs anything

You spelled katana wrong

 

[vazha]

Playing BG I & II felt like reading a neat, if slightly silly adventure book, whereas playing BG 3 feels like playing a mobile app. No charm, no soul.

 

[Mebrilia the Viera Queen]

I enjoyed a lot the early access and to me it felt like a baldurs gate. Of course is far from perfect but i like it.

I'm happy for you but no, it never felt like a Baldur's Gate game. You can like it, but it doesn't have BG aesthetics, at all. Forget the mechanics and what makes it a better dnd experience. It might even be better at that than its predeccesors but it doesn't have Baldur's Gate aesthetics. It just doesn't. The Baldur's Gate elements are not there. It's not a Baldur's Gate game. Not yet. It can be but it's not. I hope it will though. All of the elements that made the Baldur's Gate games what they are, they're missing on this game. Alright ?

It seems to me many comment are filled with a lot of Bias.

The setting is faerun around Baldur's gate? Yes it is.
It is isometric and team based? Yes it is.
It is based on the rule of Dungeon and Dragons? Yes it is
The only difference is this one is tailored around 4 adventurers (like the 5th edition is tailored) and is turn based.

But yet you have a lot more than what it was in the older ones. Skill checks. Stat checks. and so on. And please the only BG with good narration is BG2. Many people complain BG3 is not dark and gritty enough but clearly they have a clouded mind.

Wintrhop: My inn is clean as an elven arse.
Khalid: And tha-that's all folks!

And i could go on with the voice overs.

Miner: Get me out of this hell-o

BG started to have a serious plot only in BG2 and Throne of bhaal. As the first one to have decent conversations with npc you have to mod-the-hell-out-of-it.

The Ahestetics follows pretty well the 5th ED and the game take place on the 5th ED.

I think most of the bg3 real criticism can be summed on: The game is not real time with pause so i dislike it and for me is not baldurs gate.

And is a pretty poor statement to be made.

 

[SerratedBiz]

Halberd vs anything

You spelled katana wrong

Imagine not abusing the Flail of Ages to fuck up all of Faerun.

 

[Sobchak]

And is a pretty poor statement to be made.

You typed so much shit yet you're not saying anything at all.

The Ahestetics follows pretty well the 5th ED and the game take place on the 5th ED.

HOW the dnd rules have to do anything with the BG aesthetics ?

Edit: You keep confusing the adaption from the books vs how the artists of each game are actually adapting this to your monitor and tied it with the story/environment. Your argument is quite weak and one-eyed.

This game is the third of a series that has a specific feel. You can certainly put your own touch to the game but you need to also respect its foundations, otherwise you need to give it another name.

And please the only BG with good narration is BG2.

Well I don't think so... I know that most of the people prefer bg2 for various reasons but there are many cringe moments to bg2 that make the atmosphere go to hell. How the story is being unraveled is way better on bg1 but your next sentence (see quote below) destroyed my appetite to be more thorough to you and have a deeper conversation:

Many people complain BG3 is not dark and gritty enough but clearly they have a clouded mind.

So I'm happy for you, hf with your early access and if the game is a true successor I will bend over first and buy the collectors edition.

 

[Mebrilia the Viera Queen]

The Ahestetics in D&D moved from version to version. D&D 3.5 look vastly different from the awful 4th edition and i am glad to day 5th edition moved away from the 4th edition however.
Neverwinter nights when was released moved completely away from the D&D ahestetics at the point most monster were barely recognizable as mobs from D&D that was fixed with NWN2 and also BG had this problems to start with. For BG3 they simply used the Ahestetic that was more fitting for the edition the game was in.

Also baldur's gate one was awfully written aside from the main quest that were okey most things were pretty mediocre and with an humor that felt out of place and most of the time were completely out of context. It was filled with pop culture references about cartoon characters(Khalid repeating the phrase porky pig did) and things absolutely silly outside of that there was not an in depth interaction with the npcs you would find in the world aside the setting ones such as Elminster or Drizzt. Most dialogues were very short or way too much long but with a total lack of personality.

What bg1 was good at is to have a nice sense of adventuring and exploration ((if adventuring for you consist in merely killing mobs take loot and open chests.)) and had a decent main questline that was expanded in bg2.

 

[Gargaune]

I enjoyed a lot the early access and to me it felt like a baldurs gate. Of course is far from perfect but i like it.

I'm happy for you but no, it never felt like a Baldur's Gate game. You can like it, but it doesn't have BG aesthetics, at all. Forget the mechanics and what makes it a better dnd experience. It might even be better at that than its predeccesors but it doesn't have Baldur's Gate aesthetics. It just doesn't. The Baldur's Gate elements are not there. It's not a Baldur's Gate game. Not yet. It can be but it's not. I hope it will though. All of the elements that made the Baldur's Gate games what they are, they're missing on this game. Alright ?

It's not just aesthetics (or story etc.), the more important point is that Larian's game is mechanically too different from the original Baldur's Gate series - like it or not, BG was RTwP, and the new title plays nothing like it. That it's more faithful to D&D is irrelevant, it's not faithful to Baldur's Gate. Also, now that I've tried out the EA, a lesser but still impactful departure is how BG3 is structured around time-locked environments. Between the EA and the leaked world map, it seems we'll be dealing with fewer but much larger locations, with each chapter focused on its own sort of "mini open world" and set in smaller, more controlled timeframes. Your mileage may vary, but it gave me a very different sense of space during play.

Anyway, I like the EA, I think it shows a lot of potential and BG3 has great odds at turning out certifiably Not Shit (provided Larian fix the controls and selective initiative), but it's plainly got bugger all to do with the original BG series. This really shouldn't be controversial here, I have it on good authority that there have already been other quality CRPGs which weren't Baldur's Gate. You want a new BG fix, you play Owlcat's Pathfinder, BG3 is a completely different experience.

 

[Mebrilia the Viera Queen]

I enjoyed a lot the early access and to me it felt like a baldurs gate. Of course is far from perfect but i like it.

I'm happy for you but no, it never felt like a Baldur's Gate game. You can like it, but it doesn't have BG aesthetics, at all. Forget the mechanics and what makes it a better dnd experience. It might even be better at that than its predeccesors but it doesn't have Baldur's Gate aesthetics. It just doesn't. The Baldur's Gate elements are not there. It's not a Baldur's Gate game. Not yet. It can be but it's not. I hope it will though. All of the elements that made the Baldur's Gate games what they are, they're missing on this game. Alright ?

It's not just aesthetics (or story etc.), the more important point is that Larian's game is mechanically too different from the original Baldur's Gate series - like it or not, BG was RTwP, and the new title plays nothing like it. That it's more faithful to D&D is irrelevant, it's not faithful to Baldur's Gate. Also, now that I've tried out the EA, a lesser but still impactful departure is how BG3 is structured around time-locked environments. Between the EA and the leaked world map, it seems we'll be dealing with fewer but much larger locations, with each chapter focused on its own sort of "mini open world" and set in smaller, more controlled timeframes. Your mileage may vary, but it gave me a very different sense of space during play.

Anyway, I like the EA, I think it shows a lot of potential and BG3 has great odds at turning out certifiably Not Shit (provided Larian fix the controls and selective initiative), but it's plainly got bugger all to do with the original BG series. This really shouldn't be controversial here, I have it on good authority that there have already been other quality CRPGs which weren't Baldur's Gate. You want a new BG fix, you play Owlcat's Pathfinder, BG3 is a completely different experience.

Now this is a criticism i can understand. I can see how someone could dislike the new gameplay for the sequel. The mechanics had to be different since we all knew it was a game done with the 5th edition. As for real time vs turn based is a matter of preference i do favour turn based because you can mechanically do a lot more things similiar to the pen and paper. As i ended the early access i was able to see the game map that were looking exactly similiar to how it was in the old baldurs gate or pillars of eternity. The game is also going to be insanely big. The space required for the full version seems to be very very larg. The only objective things to be criticized about and a true departure from the old titles is lack of day and night cicle and lacks of random encounter this is so far the thing i dislike most.

As artstyle is concerned i like the art of the 3.5 edition. I utterly dislike the 4th edition art it was too much cartoonish for me. But the 5th edition art is actually pretty good. And please don't tell me the advanced one and the older D&D art is beautiful because is not even i can draw better than that.

However while respecting who dislike the choice taken in favour of turn based i think it was necessary. At least now seems to play truly D&D and not an RTS with fancy spells. Beside there was in the other hand who was hoping to get the sequel in the AD&D ruleset with as protagonist the same of the past games. THat is just far from reasonable.

 

[Swen]

I enjoyed a lot the early access and to me it felt like a baldurs gate. Of course is far from perfect but i like it.

I'm happy for you but no, it never felt like a Baldur's Gate game. You can like it, but it doesn't have BG aesthetics, at all. Forget the mechanics and what makes it a better dnd experience. It might even be better at that than its predeccesors but it doesn't have Baldur's Gate aesthetics. It just doesn't. The Baldur's Gate elements are not there. It's not a Baldur's Gate game. Not yet. It can be but it's not. I hope it will though. All of the elements that made the Baldur's Gate games what they are, they're missing on this game. Alright ?

"muh aesthetics"

Even if the old bioware would make BG3 now, it would look completely different to BG1 and 2, there's a 20 year difference. Retarded critique.

And the "aesthetics" of the old games were never special anway. Or does it need to be "dark" to satisfy you edgelords?

 

[DeLastOne]

I enjoyed a lot the early access and to me it felt like a baldurs gate. Of course is far from perfect but i like it.

I'm happy for you but no, it never felt like a Baldur's Gate game. You can like it, but it doesn't have BG aesthetics, at all. Forget the mechanics and what makes it a better dnd experience. It might even be better at that than its predeccesors but it doesn't have Baldur's Gate aesthetics. It just doesn't. The Baldur's Gate elements are not there. It's not a Baldur's Gate game. Not yet. It can be but it's not. I hope it will though. All of the elements that made the Baldur's Gate games what they are, they're missing on this game. Alright ?

"muh aesthetics"

Even if the old bioware would make BG3 now, it would look completely different to BG1 and 2, there's a 20 year difference. Retarded critique.

And the "aesthetics" of the old games were never special anway. Or does it need to be "dark" to satisfy you edgelords?

very nicely put.

 

[jackofshadows]

The mechanics had to be different since we all knew it was a game done with the 5th edition.

Even to me, far from a 5e expert is clear that Larian are doing pretty loose ruleset adaptation: their favorite elemental shit is all over, almost no reactions, various little changes like with the spears etc etc. They were going for team initiative even before EA. So stop using this argument. At least for now because changes are coming. Same with TB: they went for it simply because D:OS1/2 success and their own experience with it, not because "it has to be done" or anything. End of story.

As i ended the early access i was able to see the game map that were looking exactly similiar to how it was in the old baldurs gate or pillars of eternity.

No, the surface is nowhere similar with cramped theme locations next to each other so if the pattern continues, it'll be a vastly different experience, exploration wise. Tbf, underdark part is much more coherent and even, faithful, I dare to say. But saying that the game is anywhere faithful to the series is ridiculous, it feels nowhere near the old games. And it's fine to me but I perfectly understand people who are massively irritated by the very fact that the game is called BG3, no matter how many plot connections it gets, eventually.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

No, the surface is nowhere similar with cramped theme locations next to each other

...So was bg1.
Ever notice why some locations had a travel time of 0?
All of the maps can be stitched together to make one big map.

 

[Gargaune]

Now this is a criticism i can understand. I can see how someone could dislike the new gameplay for the sequel.

Just to clarify, 'cause this often seems to get confused - I don't dislike BG3's gameplay, I'm merely pointing out that it's substantially different from the BG series. Similar to how Fallout 3 was from its predecessors, albeit not quite to the same extent. Naming aside, I've been enjoying BG3 quite a bit for what it is, the only things I keep bitching about are controls and selective initiative, which Larian could hypothetically fix.