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

[Palomides]

LOL... Anyway, since you guys seems to have hated BG3 companions, which companions would you add to the game if you could?

I? I would make the 8 companions :

• Dwarf heavy armored shield focused lawful good fighter who lost his faith and can regain his faith and become a lg paladin or cleric depending on player choices.
• Robin hood style chaotic good ranger elf who hates taxes.
• Chaotic neutral human barbarian who sees magery and/or civilization as a tool for weaklings who should't survive to defy the natural order, he would't join the party if charname is warlock, sorcerer, wizard and will be harder to recruit for divine casters but still possible
• Neutral dragonborn who become a warlock to try in vain to save his village
• Fanservice blonde, blue eyed elf cleric chick
• Fanservice NYMPH druid chick ( druid is the most underrepresented class in this types of games) which got separated from her glade by a mindflayer experiment.
• Gnome trickster illusionist who believes that gnomes are superior and should rule non gnomes
• Halfling rogue who orphan who stole to live since he childhood.

What do you guys think?

I would add Korgan, who should still be alive, and kill all the other companions with him, and go off on mad adventures seeking treasure.

 

[NecroLord]

LOL... Anyway, since you guys seems to have hated BG3 companions, which companions would you add to the game if you could?

I? I would make the 8 companions :

• Dwarf heavy armored shield focused lawful good fighter who lost his faith and can regain his faith and become a lg paladin or cleric depending on player choices.
• Robin hood style chaotic good ranger elf who hates taxes.
• Chaotic neutral human barbarian who sees magery and/or civilization as a tool for weaklings who should't survive to defy the natural order, he would't join the party if charname is warlock, sorcerer, wizard and will be harder to recruit for divine casters but still possible
• Neutral dragonborn who become a warlock to try in vain to save his village
• Fanservice blonde, blue eyed elf cleric chick
• Fanservice NYMPH druid chick ( druid is the most underrepresented class in this types of games) which got separated from her glade by a mindflayer experiment.
• Gnome trickster illusionist who believes that gnomes are superior and should rule non gnomes
• Halfling rogue who orphan who stole to live since he childhood.

What do you guys think?

I would add Korgan, who should still be alive, and kill all the other companions with him, and go off on mad adventures seeking treasure.

Korgan is too based and redpilled and chad-like to be brought back.
Larian only likes low T complaining punks as companions.

 

[ropetight]

I get the date, but is this funny in Belgium or something? Lost in translation?

Larian has history of "jokes" with cheese, they must be considering it insider joke.
They hope to achieve Stan Lee cameo in Marvel movies effect - lame, but you can rest assured that it will happen.

 

[Peachcurl]

The joke EASILY should've been a barrelmancer class.

Luckily, Gothic revamp devs (Alkimia) did that instead. So we have both jokes. The cheesy cheese joke and the barrel of laughs.

These retards will destroy Gothic, Outcast 2 and Alone in the Dark.

edit: it's probably a April's Fool day joke but fuck it

 

[ItsChon]

I like Arcanum DESPITE its combat and due how reactive the world is to the player's character (and how expansive the character creation is, compared to most cRPGs). Like you said before - just because combat is not great and the game was obviously unfinished doesn't mean it can be considered a great RPG in spite of these flaws.

The thing with combat is that oftentimes it is the key aspect of a game's actual gameplay. Arcanum's combat is so bad that it pretty much disqualifies Arcanum in my eyes. And don't think this is because I am a combat fag, it's just that I requires good gameplay in a game that I play. Disco Elysium had no combat and I thought it was great, because the thing that you are constantly engaging in is so fun and engaging. This is also why I love a game like Vagrus or Sunless Sea. Planescape: Torment is one of my favorite games of all time, not because the combat is good, but because it's okay enough that I can actually enjoy the things the game does good without wanting to drive a spike through my brain. KotOR is the same thing. It's like a minimum threshold you have to meet in regards to how good the combat is in the game (that threshold doesn't even mean the game has good combat, it just has to not suck so hard the game is totally unfun to play) in order to even be in the conversation of whether or not the game is good.

I found combat to be fine in Fallout and the writing was serviceable. This sounds like a personal preference more than anything else. Not that there is anything wrong with that (after all, de gustibus non disputandum est), but it can't exactly be used as an objective criteria when weighting one game against the other.

You say it's subjective, but it's not. Fallout's combat system is objectively simple and easy. If you're okay with that, I'm jealous you have a lower bar than myself when it comes to the type of combat you can enjoy in games, but when it comes to weighing games against each other, I do think we can hold Fallout's simplistic combat against it. Also, while you might say the writing is serviceable, I'd argue Baldur's Gate had fantastic writing. Note, I wasn't stating that Fallout is a bad game (that is on the table though, but I am not going to get into that now), merely that Baldur's Gate is a better game.

I didn't have any problem with either the art style nor the UI, so I am not sure what's the problem here. Nor I find it to be an argument for or against something being a particularly good RPG.

Again, even if I was to secede the point that Fallout's UI and art style were not bad, I would argue that Baldur's Gate's art style and UI are far superior to that of Fallout, hence, making it the better game, which makes it the better RPG.

I disagree with this take.

It does matter how many RPG elements a game has (or how they are implemented) if we are to judge it as an RPG. For example: I will take any Troika game over a BioWare game, because in Troika games low intellect actually impacts what you can say, whereas in BioWare games you can make a character with INT 1 and talk perfectly fine as their games don't track character's stats in conversations. Which is VERY stupid thing to do in an RPG.

And this is the crux of our difference, and it's honestly a take that blows my mind. If Troika made a game with shit combat, shit writing, and shit art style, but kept the system in place where the game tracks the characters stats in conversation so your character with low INT will act dumb, you would prefer that game to a hypothetical BioWare title that did everything right but didn't have that one feature? I'm almost certain you would say that's ridiculous, which means that there is a point where the quality of the game supercedes the amount of RPG elements a game has, as long as both games have enough of said elements so that they are both considered to be a part of the RPG genre. That means we just disagree where the line should be drawn, and to that I say, any line that you draw will be entirely arbitrary, and it will fall apart under intense scrutiny. At the end of the day, we're playing games here, and what matters the most is whether or not a game is fun, not how many RPG element buzzwords the game has in it.

EDIT: Oh and even more than the combat, the thing that sucks about Arcanum is how broken it is. I could not get it to run properly on my PC, and the bugs. The game was even worse on release without all the patches. Like I said, disqualified.

 

[Rhobar121]

In the case of rpg games, I can survive even realy bad gameplay as long as the rest of the game is good.
I never finished PoE because the whole story was just boring and over-philosophical. Also, I never managed to finish Icewind Dale even though I played most of the games on Infinity Engine.
If I cared about gameplay (combat) above all, I wouldn't play crpg in the first place

 

[ItsChon]

If I cared about gameplay (combat) above all, I wouldn't play crpg in the first place

Yeah find the part where I said that buddy. Just because you can put up with absolute shit just so you can enjoy the few things the game does well, doesn't mean the game way you interpret, rate, and consume game content is a good one. Also, PoE is not an RPG, so moot point.

 

[Rhobar121]

If I cared about gameplay (combat) above all, I wouldn't play crpg in the first place

Yeah find the part where I said that buddy. Just because you can put up with absolute shit just so you can enjoy the few things the game does well, doesn't mean the game way you interpret, rate, and consume game content is a good one. Also, PoE is not an RPG, so moot point.

For clarity, I'm talking about Pillars of Eternity, not Path of Exile.

 

[ItsChon]

If I cared about gameplay (combat) above all, I wouldn't play crpg in the first place

Yeah find the part where I said that buddy. Just because you can put up with absolute shit just so you can enjoy the few things the game does well, doesn't mean the game way you interpret, rate, and consume game content is a good one. Also, PoE is not an RPG, so moot point.

For clarity, I'm talking about Pillars of Eternity, not Path of Exile.

Pillars of Eternity had dogshit combat, so I don't know why you used it as an example about combat not being critical to RPGs.

 

[Mortmal]

I get the date, but is this funny in Belgium or something? Lost in translation?

Nah nothing lost in translation, it is cringe in any country. Belgium humor used to be better than that .

 

[Rhobar121]

If I cared about gameplay (combat) above all, I wouldn't play crpg in the first place

Yeah find the part where I said that buddy. Just because you can put up with absolute shit just so you can enjoy the few things the game does well, doesn't mean the game way you interpret, rate, and consume game content is a good one. Also, PoE is not an RPG, so moot point.

For clarity, I'm talking about Pillars of Eternity, not Path of Exile.

Pillars of Eternity had dogshit combat, so I don't know why you used it as an example about combat not being critical to RPGs.

Still better than most RPGs.

 

[ItsChon]

If I cared about gameplay (combat) above all, I wouldn't play crpg in the first place

Yeah find the part where I said that buddy. Just because you can put up with absolute shit just so you can enjoy the few things the game does well, doesn't mean the game way you interpret, rate, and consume game content is a good one. Also, PoE is not an RPG, so moot point.

For clarity, I'm talking about Pillars of Eternity, not Path of Exile.

Pillars of Eternity had dogshit combat, so I don't know why you used it as an example about combat not being critical to RPGs.

Still better than most RPGs.

Maybe the dogshit RPGs you play. And even then, you have no concept of what "better" even is.

Planescape: Torment combat > Pillars of Eternity combat

Only the uneducated will disagree with that take.

 

[mediocrepoet]

Planescape: Torment combat > Pillars of Eternity combat

I guess it finally happened: You went so far up your own ass, you got lost in the annals (heh) of your agenda.

PST combat blows and I'm struggling to come up with something I think is worse off hand.

 

[Butter]

Maybe the dogshit RPGs you play. And even then, you have no concept of what "better" even is.

Planescape: Torment combat > Pillars of Eternity combat

Only the uneducated will disagree with that take.

This is a ludicrously bad take dude. Torment is better than Pillars in every other category. You can concede the combat being worse.

 

[The_Mask]

I still think Enola is one of the best spells ever made. And I really like that lvl 9 spells have their own dedicated little snippet, so Planescape combat is definitely not dogshit tier.

However comparing the combat in Planescape with PoE, is really like trying to determine which is the more polished turd.

 

[Rhobar121]

Still combat system in PoE > Pathfinder.
If anyone has ever played Planescape for the combat, they must have been really disappointed.

 

[Mebrilia the Viera Queen]

Still combat system in PoE > Pathfinder.
If anyone has ever played Planescape for the combat, they must have been really disappointed.

I don't know i think claiming that is a pretty far stretch.

 

[rojay]

I get the date, but is this funny in Belgium or something? Lost in translation?

Nah nothing lost in translation, it is cringe in any country. Belgium humor used to be better than that .

Know what's worse than a Belgian?

A Lichtensteiner. ::rimshot::

 

[Harthwain]

Planescape: Torment is one of my favorite games of all time, not because the combat is good, but because it's okay enough that I can actually enjoy the things the game does good without wanting to drive a spike through my brain.

I would never call Planescape: Torment's combat "okay enough". It's irredemable shit the game would be better off without (which is also why I can't fault Disco for doing away with tactical combat).

You say it's subjective, but it's not. Fallout's combat system is objectively simple and easy. If you're okay with that, I'm jealous you have a lower bar than myself when it comes to the type of combat you can enjoy in games, but when it comes to weighing games against each other, I do think we can hold Fallout's simplistic combat against it.

Not really? Having simplistic combat means little when we have to judge the RPG-ness of it, and Fallout's combat has a plenty of elements that make its combat the epitome of RPG-ness. Hell, some people would say that having simple combat is a positive, not a negative.

Also, while you might say the writing is serviceable, I'd argue Baldur's Gate had fantastic writing.

It is interesting, because to me Baldur's Gate writing was on a similar level to Fallout (sans the "fun" parts). Calling Baldur's Gate a masterpiece of writing is a bit much in my opinion. Sure, it's decent, but I'd never say it was THAT good.

Note, I wasn't stating that Fallout is a bad game (that is on the table though, but I am not going to get into that now), merely that Baldur's Gate is a better game.

Well, I think herein lies the difference between us: while you try to decide which is a better game, I try to decide which is a better Role Playing game.

And this is the crux of our difference, and it's honestly a take that blows my mind. If Troika made a game with shit combat, shit writing, and shit art style [...]

Let me stop you right here - I don't think Troika made games with shit writing or shit art style.

At the end of the day, we're playing games here, and what matters the most is whether or not a game is fun, not how many RPG element buzzwords the game has in it.

In my opinion we should strive for the better, which is why I hold Troika games (and Fallout) in high regard as RPGs. And we're not talking about "RPG element buzzwords" right now - that's exactly what BioWare was doing all this time! (at least since Mass Effect): using the "RPG elements" to make them into buzzwords without real meaning behind them. Troika, on the other hand, made "RPG elements" integral aspect of their games. Which is as it should be when we're talking about RPGs.

 

[Zed Duke of Banville]

The worst thing about April 1st are all the companies trying to be funny.

April 1 is not funny.

 

[Reinhardt]

japanese ching-chongs: "i know - let's make mini-game to celebrate japanese ching-chongs win at baseball world cup and april fools and add it to our shitty mobile gacha game for only one day!"
western developers: "i know - let's make some shitty cringe video!"

this is april fools in fate grand order -



each year new mini game for only one day.

 

[Dadd]

Don't know what on earth you're saying but April Fools' should be deleted from the calendar, all it does is reduce social trust and all the jokes are cringe

 

[Reinhardt]

imagine calling "ma'am" "ma'am" for just one day

 

[ItsChon]

Planescape: Torment combat > Pillars of Eternity combat

I guess it finally happened: You went so far up your own ass, you got lost in the annals (heh) of your agenda.

PST combat blows and I'm struggling to come up with something I think is worse off hand.

Maybe the dogshit RPGs you play. And even then, you have no concept of what "better" even is.

Planescape: Torment combat > Pillars of Eternity combat

Only the uneducated will disagree with that take.

This is a ludicrously bad take dude. Torment is better than Pillars in every other category. You can concede the combat being worse.

Not at all. Both games have bad combat systems, but Planescape: Torment's combat system resolves itself quickly. The battles can be beaten extremely fast with little effort, and it still has the buttery responsiveness that is emblematic of IE games. Pillars of Eternity combat is slow and drags forever on the other hand. I will take the combat system that bothers me the least, any day of the week.

I would never call Planescape: Torment's combat "okay enough". It's irredemable shit the game would be better off without (which is also why I can't fault Disco for doing away with tactical combat).

I did not mind it in the slightest. It's easy RTwP combat that you barely need to worry about.

Not really? Having simplistic combat means little when we have to judge the RPG-ness of it, and Fallout's combat has a plenty of elements that make its combat the epitome of RPG-ness. Hell, some people would say that having simple combat is a positive, not a negative.

Bro what is your weird obsession with "RPGness". It doesn't matter how "RPG" a game is if the game ends up being shit. I wasn't making a claim that Fallout is lacking in "RPG-ness", I was merely making the claim that its combat is shit, and the game is worse off because of it.

It is interesting, because to me Baldur's Gate writing was on a similar level to Fallout (sans the "fun" parts). Calling Baldur's Gate a masterpiece of writing is a bit much in my opinion. Sure, it's decent, but I'd never say it was THAT good.

When did I say masterpiece? I said the game has fantastic writing, which it does. Just compare the starting dialogues world building that you see in Candlekeep in Baldur's Gate to the starting dialogues and world building that you see in Shady Sands. Not even close.

Well, I think herein lies the difference between us: while you try to decide which is a better game, I try to decide which is a better Role Playing game.

Your issue is that you assume the more RPG elements a game has, the better role playing game it is. Once a game meets the prerequisites to be become a role playing game, adding more role playing game elements is not a virtue in and of itself.

Let me stop you right here - I don't think Troika made games with shit writing or shit art style.

It was a hypothetical. I said pretend they did. When you do that, finish reading what I wrote, and realize that your position is logically incoherent.

In my opinion we should strive for the better, which is why I hold Troika games (and Fallout) in high regard as RPGs. And we're not talking about "RPG element buzzwords" right now - that's exactly what BioWare was doing all this time! (at least since Mass Effect): using the "RPG elements" to make them into buzzwords without real meaning behind them. Troika, on the other hand, made "RPG elements" integral aspect of their games. Which is as it should be when we're talking about RPGs.

What does RPG stand for? Role playing game. Falout and Arcanum had the Role playing part down you might argue, but they failed at the game part. Thus, it doesn't matter how noble or awesome their vision was, they were failures in the sense that they did not succeed in making a compelling and fun game, which is a key part of what makes a RPG.

 

[Harthwain]

Bro what is your weird obsession with "RPGness". It doesn't matter how "RPG" a game is if the game ends up being shit.

You started talking about "the greatest RPGs of all time" so I think it is only natural to focus on what makes RPG an RPG.

I was merely making the claim that its combat is shit, and the game is worse off because of it.

OK? But the very same thing can be said about Planescape: Torment, which went on your list of "the greatest RPGs of all time". So, by the same token, denying similar treatment to Fallout or Arcanum is a double standard.

When did I say masterpiece? I said the game has fantastic writing, which it does.

I said "a masterpiece of writing", which to me is pretty much the same as "fantastic writing", only using slightly different words.

Your issue is that you assume the more RPG elements a game has, the better role playing game it is. Once a game meets the prerequisites to be become a role playing game, adding more role playing game elements is not a virtue in and of itself.

I don't agree with that statement and the trend in which modern "RPGs" go should be good enough proof as to explain why. As I said before - this is BioWare's approach and we all can see where it led us.

It was a hypothetical. I said pretend they did. When you do that, finish reading what I wrote, and realize that your position is logically incoherent.

I guess this is what is called "a strawman argument"? Sure, a stawman arguments tend to be logically incoherent. Which is also why they are called a logical fallacy. But you're not really proving anything that way.

Falout and Arcanum had the Role playing part down you might argue, but they failed at the game part. Thus, it doesn't matter how noble or awesome their vision was, they were failures in the sense that they did not succeed in making a compelling and fun game, which is a key part of what makes a RPG.

Sorry, but both Fallout and Arcanum are widely considered to be RPG classics (as opposed to your opinion as an individual). And, no, the key part of what makes an RPG is NOT "compelling and fun game". It's the RPG element. "Compelling and fun game" should be the key part of ANY game, not just an RPG.

EDIT: Oh and even more than the combat, the thing that sucks about Arcanum is how broken it is. I could not get it to run properly on my PC, and the bugs. The game was even worse on release without all the patches. Like I said, disqualified.

Um, Vampire: The Masquerade - Bloodlines (yet another widely recognized RPG classic that was a buggy mess, sometimes unfinishable on release)?

You remind me of Lilura here somewhat. Lilura claimed that you should only judge games by the state the were released in, which is absurd when discussing any game year (or even months) later. While I sympathize with your predicament, I have no problem running Arcanum on my PC in high resolution (compared to the original), so I can't really share your position about technical issues related to Arcanum either.