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

[Lacrymas]

Yes, gaming should be made for clueless girlfriends. Duh. I have been so blind.

 

[underground nymph]

I fucking hate pre buffing. The most retarded thing which must be abandoned and forgotten along with all sorts of autism PF ferociously promotes.

 

[Harthwain]

Yes, gaming should be made for clueless girlfriends. Duh. I have been so blind.

Way to miss the point. Who's clueless now?

 

[Anonona]

Very much agree with this. Simulation should be gameplay, at least in terms of everything that doesn't relate to magic (and even with magic, I would argue that it should be simulationist of traditional ideas of "real" magic, of which there are plenty examples, pretty consistent across cultures). Simulation is gameplay because the rules are familiar - the world ought to react how you'd expect it to react. The ideal game should react to your intuition immediatly, there ought to be no special "gameplay" rules that you have to learn.

One of the most insightful comments I saw from a gamer about this was someone talking about trying to get his gf into videogames. He observed that what put her off was the fact that she would try things out, and the world wouldn't react the way one would expect it to react (could be as simple as putting a box on top of another box). And this made him realize that us gamers have just gotten used to earlier forms of simulation that were around when we were younger, so we understand the rules and the limitations. All the "game" stuff we have is either a) simulation that fails to be good simulation because of technological limitations, or b) the hiving off of "art for art's sake" rulesets that we call "gameplay" (as if that's some special thing that's different from simulation) that have their own discrete charm. Us "gamers" are so used to these that we don't hold developers to a high enough standard re. simulation.

Why should Larian's world-interactivity be hailed as some sort of great advance? It should be just basic stuff. Just the world reacting to one's actions as it should, as one would expect it to. But we know why: it's because of the limitations - limitations of skill, of programming, of AI, of graphics, etc. Gradually these limitations are being overcome and we have the potential for improvement. At the momen turn-based or RTwP are generally more simulationist than realitime play: because with turn-based you can actually simulate more of the detail than you could, even if only in abstract ways. Realtime simulation is still limited by the limitation of inputs (m/k, "controllers", etc.).

I think that approach isn't necessary for every single type if game. Different forms of abstractions create different challenges and problems which demand from the player to develop different amount of skills. A good game is just as defined by its limitations as the freedom it provides. Sure, a game allowing the player to be creative is fun, but also the game that forces the player to develop their skills as far as they can is also really fun. And finding creative solutions in a well defined and limited environment is usually more satisfying that being able to do whatever and still being rewarded.

Also not to mention that anecdote and that line of thought to be awful. While you can take it as "gamers are to used to the limitations caused by shitty hardware" what I find is "modern audiences are to fucking lazy to learn the rules of a game". I can tell you already that you can make the most amazing reactive game ever and people will still prefer brainless shit like fortnite or whatever flavor of the month game is popular. Hell, look at DnD 5E compared to past editions. More simplified and gamey and yet the most popular of the bunch because it is simple.

 

[Lacrymas]

Ugh, 5E is the worst example because it's actually good and the "simplified" rules are a plus and very elegant. Yeah, it needs a few homebrew rules to make it actually great, but that's peanuts compared to the overwhelming bloat that was 3.5E.

 

[Anonona]

Ugh, 5E is the worst example because it's actually good and the "simplified" rules are a plus and very elegant.

Regardless, I think the example can work simply because 5E "simulates" less things than older editions, yet the reason it is popular is that is simpler.

Spoiler

And received a ton more marketing

 

[Sharpedge]

Good mechanics and fights > subjective feelings of what is immersive. I don't think not being able to cast buffs outside of combat is immersion breaking, especially since I know it serves a combat purpose.

Except in this case it isn't really subjective. If you are provided with tertiary information which suggests that it might be best to prepare for a specific scenario, you are probably going to prepare for said scenario unless you are deliberately choosing to ignore the existing warnings. If the weather report says its going to rain and, looking outside the window it looks like its going to rain, then if I decide to head outside for a walk, I will probably take some precautions assuming that it is going to rain. Prebuffing is similar to this and it adds to the game's verisimilitude. Whether or not you agree that its an important aspect of games is another subject entirely, but the fact that it adds to immersion is not subjective.

 

[gurugeorge]

Very much agree with this. Simulation should be gameplay, at least in terms of everything that doesn't relate to magic (and even with magic, I would argue that it should be simulationist of traditional ideas of "real" magic, of which there are plenty examples, pretty consistent across cultures). Simulation is gameplay because the rules are familiar - the world ought to react how you'd expect it to react. The ideal game should react to your intuition immediatly, there ought to be no special "gameplay" rules that you have to learn.

One of the most insightful comments I saw from a gamer about this was someone talking about trying to get his gf into videogames. He observed that what put her off was the fact that she would try things out, and the world wouldn't react the way one would expect it to react (could be as simple as putting a box on top of another box). And this made him realize that us gamers have just gotten used to earlier forms of simulation that were around when we were younger, so we understand the rules and the limitations. All the "game" stuff we have is either a) simulation that fails to be good simulation because of technological limitations, or b) the hiving off of "art for art's sake" rulesets that we call "gameplay" (as if that's some special thing that's different from simulation) that have their own discrete charm. Us "gamers" are so used to these that we don't hold developers to a high enough standard re. simulation.

Why should Larian's world-interactivity be hailed as some sort of great advance? It should be just basic stuff. Just the world reacting to one's actions as it should, as one would expect it to. But we know why: it's because of the limitations - limitations of skill, of programming, of AI, of graphics, etc. Gradually these limitations are being overcome and we have the potential for improvement. At the momen turn-based or RTwP are generally more simulationist than realitime play: because with turn-based you can actually simulate more of the detail than you could, even if only in abstract ways. Realtime simulation is still limited by the limitation of inputs (m/k, "controllers", etc.).

I think that approach isn't necessary for every single type if game. Different forms of abstractions create different challenges and problems which demand from the player to develop different amount of skills. A good game is just as defined by its limitations as the freedom it provides. Sure, a game allowing the player to be creative is fun, but also the game that forces the player to develop their skills as far as they can is also really fun. And finding creative solutions in a well defined and limited environment is usually more satisfying that being able to do whatever and still being rewarded.

Yeah that's what I meant by b). I can appreciate the point that rulesets can spin off and be their own thing as games, and I take the point that there's value in tightness and simplicity too. But the point is that RPGs specifically, of all things, are heavily focused on simulation. It's a dream of adventure in an alternate universe.

Ofc if the simulation were pure 1:1 (i.e. a holodeck) you'd almost be losing the point of a game - it would then be as difficult and sticky as real life, success would be hard to come by, so it wouldn't be an escape. Whereas the point of a game is to make you happy by providing a series of challenges that are just at the edge of your capability, so you're more successful in the virtual world than you would be in real life. And that means it has to be oriented somewhat around you as a player, be aware of player limitations and requirements, be a service (a DM) in some sense.

 

[Larianshill]

The fuck are you even talking about?

 

[Anonona]

Yeah that's what I meant by b). I can appreciate the point that rulesets can spin off and be their own thing as games, and I take the point that there's value in tightness and simplicity too. But the point is that RPGs specifically, of all things, are heavily focused on simulation. It's a dream of adventure in an alternate universe.

Ofc if the simulation were pure 1:1 (i.e. a holodeck) you'd almost be losing the point of a game - it would then be as difficult and sticky as real life, success would be hard to come by, so it wouldn't be an escape. Whereas the point of a game is to make you happy by providing a series of challenges that are just at the edge of your capability, so you're more successful in the virtual world than you would be in real life. And that means it has to be oriented somewhat around you as a player, be aware of player limitations and requirements, be a service (a DM) in some sense.

I can see where are you coming from. Yeah, specifically in RPGs it would be interesting to see systems that aimed to siimulate real life a bit more. I still would say it isn't necessary the norm for every single one, but for stuff like DnD games and those that wish to adapt a experience similar to tabletop to PC it would be a worthy endeavor.

The fuck are you even talking about?

Anything but the game

 

[Saravan]

I fucking hate pre buffing. The most retarded thing which must be abandoned and forgotten along with all sorts of autism PF ferociously promotes.

I really don't get how someone genuinely enjoys clicking on the same set of buffs prior to any relevant combat encounter. And it always leads to ridiculous meta-gaming as well. This was apparent in PF:KM as nobody was seriously diverting from the meta buffs, which were a pre-requisite in higher difficulties as well.

 

[Delterius]

No, it just equalises the playing field, which should be equal in the first place, so just bake the buffs into the classes and skip the extra step.

Okay, time to ask for an expert opinion:

Delterius, can buffs be baked into classes?

Fun fact in pathfinder tabletop they added a evil witch archetype with the ability to cook people and make buff potions from it.

They also added the Hansel and Gretel witch as an archetype and it has the special ability smell children which for some reason was decided by the community to be a very bad idea.

 

[NJClaw]

No, it just equalises the playing field, which should be equal in the first place, so just bake the buffs into the classes and skip the extra step.

Okay, time to ask for an expert opinion:

Delterius, can buffs be baked into classes?

Fun fact in pathfinder tabletop they added a evil witch archetype with the ability to cook people and make buff potions from it.

They also added the Hansel and Gretel witch as an archetype and it has the special ability smell children which for some reason was decided by the community to be a very bad idea.

Just like the Codex, Pathfinder is nothing more than an FBI honeypot.

 

[Reinhardt]

Fuck prebuffing and fuck spellcasters. Make everything into passives i can pick for my fighter.

 

[Tuco Benedicto Pacifico]

Speaking of minute details, how do you guys see the chances that Larian could rework the wolves models in something that doesn't look like some weird pig-crocodile hybrid from Chernobyl?

 

[Delterius]

pig-crocodile hybrid from Chernobyl

this is a completly valid monster entry right next to horse spider

 

[Tuco Benedicto Pacifico]

Add some hair and that's pretty spot on.

 

[Reinhardt]

GREEN IZ DA BIGGEST AN DA STRONGEST!

 

[anvi]

I can't wait for this game.

 

[gurugeorge]

pig-crocodile hybrid from Chernobyl

this is a completly valid monster entry right next to horse spider

Wow, did you draw that yourself Delterius? Really top-notch drawing skillz there!

 

[Ontopoly]

MUH VERTICALITY! MANY NEW! NEVA BEFORE! Lol, Disgaea had "verticality" 20 years ago. Can you throw your party members across the rift? Can you climb pyramid built of your party members? Can you disarm traps by lifting and throwing enemies at it? Can you capture enemies by throwing them to your camp and letting your unused party members beating the shit out of them?

If it was done 20 years ago then bg3 really should have it...
We're not acting like verticality is the saving grace of Solasta. We're talking about how it's pathetic that larian is making a 3d turn based game and doesn't have it, and pointing out that larian can't do it when Solasta (and even Disgaea) can.

 

[Ontopoly]

Only a fool would walk into a haunted crypt without death ward up. My adventurer's body screams out: "Allow me to prepare for the obvious threat ahead of me." Prepping before a threat makes sense to me. Makes the party feel like a competent group who prepare and know their enemy. We're not just randos with a sword, we were picked for this job for a reason.

"Every battle is won before it’s ever fought"- My adventurer.

 

[Cryomancer]

Only a fool would walk into a haunted crypt without death ward up. My adventurer's body screams out: "Allow me to prepare for the obvious threat ahead of me." Prepping before a threat makes sense to me. Makes the party feel like a competent group who prepare and know their enemy. We're not just randos with a sword, we were picked for this job for a reason.

"Every battle is won before it’s ever fought"- My adventurer.

Yep. If I know that the enemy can cast wail of the banshee and OHK my entire party in a single turn, I will NOT gonna to only cast it after engaging on him. The "concentration" mechanic forced a huge redesign on how enemies works. prohibiting pre combat buff would be far worse than the concentration mechanic. Because you can't get protection from insta death effects and mind affecting feebleming effects with spells. So a Basilisk could be a quite troublesome enemy, now is a cakewalk and requires 3 turns and 3 failed saves to petrify a single party member. Concentration mechanic is one of the reasons which 5E is much less lethal and lacks enemies with really nasty abilities. OHK spell/SLA, negative level, domination, nasty poisons that damages CON or insta kill, etc. I see the Lich monster statblock on 5E and there are ZERO nasty things to deal with.

On 3E, even at high level, you try to get information about the enemy, using divination magic, survival skills, etc BEFORE you engage in combat. On 5E, you can just mindless rush towards enemies. And you can become almost immortal at low levels(moon druid for eg). I saw a lot of people saying that it is too hard to challenge a high level party on 5E with a fair encounter. On 3E, when I DMed, I saw the party casting a lot of buffs and knew that they have too much powerful magical items. So I playing as the adversary, casted stop time, then trowed a disjunction, gate and teleported fleeing the encounter and locked the dungeon behind dimensional lock, that in the first dungeon encounter. They almost took a party wipe in that session and they at lv 17 failed on killing the enemy and had to flee the dungeon, not due a OP monster but because to access the "boss room", they would need to deal with a really nasty trap in a anti magic field and the caster failed trying to destroy the anti magic field.

Magic gear also got massive "nerfs", not only spells. When I played 3E, one of my party members had a +4 mace which cast flesh to stone when hit an enemy. He managed to turn 4 enemies into stone in a round in one encounter. That is so cool.

 

[Reinhardt]

GAAAAAAAAAAY! Just wear deathblock item, nigga!

 

[Rean]

Some people seem to think this is what an RPG is.




Those people should be shot.