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

[fantadomat]

Is this pile of shit going to come out before we all die from a fallout radiation poisoning or not ?

 

[Cyberarmy]

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.

With his good buddy Kagain.

 

[Aarwolf]

Still combat system in PoE > Pathfinder.

Go home mate, you're drunk.

 

[Rhobar121]

Still combat system in PoE > Pathfinder.

Go home mate, you're drunk.

If you're an Excel fan, I can see that you might like combat system. I don't like the need to stack a million buffs to hit an enemy with a infinite AC or saves (intentional hypebole).

 

[Infinitron]

It's happening!

 

[Swen]

Oh no a joke about cheese

Codex:"c..crringe bro"

Buch of sad cunts.

 

[Tuco Benedicto Pacifico]

Oh no a joke about cheese

Codex:"c..crringe bro"

Buch of sad cunts.

Too bad people aren't into coprophagy.

 

[Swen]

Oh no a joke about cheese

Codex:"c..crringe bro"

Buch of sad cunts.

Too bad people aren't into coprophagy.

Nigga I don't even know what that means, must be an italian thing.

 

[NJClaw]

I forget about this thread for a while and...

Planescape: Torment combat > Pillars of Eternity combat

Can someone please explain to me WHAT THE FUCK IS GOING ON?

 

[Modron]

Oh no a joke about cheese

Codex:"c..crringe bro"

Buch of sad cunts.

Too bad people aren't into coprophagy.

Nigga I don't even know what that means, must be an italian thing.

It's more of a German, Arabian, and Japanese thing.

 

[Tuco Benedicto Pacifico]

It's more of a German, Arabian, and Japanese thing.

Or an euphemism for Belgian humor.

 

[Infinitron]

 

[0sacred]

btw, where do fast-breeding hunter-gatherers like Orcs and Goblins get all their food? Are the Forgotten Realms crawling with wildlife everywhere?

 

[Larianshill]

Oh no, Wizards of the Coast with their "no race is evil" is not going to be happy about this.

 

[Nano]

I thought Larian was ditching alignment in this game anyway.

 

[Larianshill]

There's nothing to ditch, alignment is basically non-existent in 5e. Only very rare items and effects, such as the Book of Exalted Deeds, care about it. Personally, I love it, alignment needs to go the way of the dodo. Since its creation it produced nothing but interenet slapfights, and normal people don't need a note in the statblock to know that orc raiders are evil.

 

[Gargaune]

btw, where do fast-breeding hunter-gatherers like Orcs and Goblins get all their food? Are the Forgotten Realms crawling with wildlife everywhere?

"Though your character requires no food or water to survive, monsters do. They eat adventurers."

I thought Larian was ditching alignment in this game anyway.

Dunno what Wizards are up to these days, but the original 5E books still had alignments listed for creatures and Swen did say early on they'd planned to do a lot with the mechanic before Wizards nixed that idea, this might just be whatever bits and bobs are left. Shame, reactivity seems to be one of Larian's strong suits, I'd have liked to see them put the Alignment system to work.

Personally, I love it, alignment needs to go the way of the dodo. Since its creation it produced nothing but interenet slapfights, and normal people don't need a note in the statblock to know that orc raiders are evil.

Come on, let's compromise like reasonable men - Alignment stays and you go.

 

[Cat Headed Eagle]

I'm torn when it comes to alignments, I like certain limits in itemization and roleplaying but at the end of the day it feels like it sets you on a narrow path when it comes to the potential actions of your character(s) and it ends up devolving into lawful stupid or the opposite quite fast. Ditching alignments is not a bad idea per se, but the issue is that this change is also made along other stuff that's not really improving the overall scheme of things.

 

[Larianshill]

Come on, let's compromise like reasonable men - Alignment stays and you go.

I've got an alternative arrangement - I stay, the alignments go, and you eat shit.

 

[Gargaune]

Come on, let's compromise like reasonable men - Alignment stays and you go.

I've got an alternative arrangement - I stay, the alignments go, and you eat shit.

I see your point and I get where you're coming from, but I'd like to offer a counterargument:

Spoiler

No.

 

[ItsChon]

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.

Yes I understand what you are saying now. It is theoretically possible for a game to just barely qualify as an RPG while also having many elements of another genre, while another game might be completely emblematic of a RPG, and while game one might be a slightly better "game" than game two, it is possible that game two is a better RPG than game one. That being said, Baldur's Gate has so many RPG elements it is ridiculous for you to disqualify it for being in contention of "one of the greatest RPGs of all time" just because it doesn't have as many RPG elements as a different game.

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.

Yeah but Planescape: Torment does so many things way better than Fallout. I do not disagree with the premise that a RPG can have shit combat, but as long as it's not too shit that the other parts of it cannot be enjoyed, and said other parts are god enough and plentiful enough to make the RPG good, it is good. I am merely stating that Fallout does not have enough good things in it for me to consider it a good RPG, and that Arcanum was too broken or buggy for me to even get to experience those things.

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.

Alright you are actually correct here and I was wrong. That being said, I do think Baldur's Gate has so many RPG elements in it that even though it doesn't have all of them, it can still compete with something like Fallout for the title of great RPG.

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.

It isn't a strawman. The thing is, I understand what you're trying to say, and I actually think it has some merit, but the explanation you gave was terrible, and I brought up an argument to highlight that. I was being pedantic when I did that though, so whatever, we can leave this behind and focus on the key part of our disagreement.

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

V:TMB is third person shit, and while I cannot pretend that I have given the game a proper attempt, man is it hard to imagine it being even in the same stratosphere as some other RPGs that aren't held back by their POV.

So I think the key point we need to hammer out in regards to our original source of disagreement (although I have introduced other shit we disagree about such as my thoughts on Fallout, or on third person/first person view RPGs in general) is this.

1) Does Baldur's Gate have enough RPG elements for it to be considered "one of the greatest RPGs" of all time? Note that I do not think it is the greatest RPG of all time, but the question is whether or not it should even qualify to be in the debate. As far as I understand you are claiming no, which is why Fallout and Arcanum automatically supersede it in the discussion?

Do you agree that this is the key point we are discussing, and do you agree with how I have summarized your stance on said key point?

 

[ItsChon]

I forget about this thread for a while and...

Planescape: Torment combat > Pillars of Eternity combat

Can someone please explain to me WHAT THE FUCK IS GOING ON?

I already explained this.

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.

Tell me I'm wrong.

 

[Harthwain]

That being said, Baldur's Gate has so many RPG elements it is ridiculous for you to disqualify it for being in contention of "one of the greatest RPGs of all time" just because it doesn't have as many RPG elements as a different game.

I don't disqualify it. I merely think other RPGs are better at being... RPGs. While Baldur's Gate is a great example of tabletop RPG turned into a computer game (which alone suffices for it to be considered an RPG), it plays more like a tactical game with fairly minimal RPG elements outside of that, rather than the actual RPG. And this gets even worse when you compare Baldur's Gate to Icewind Dale. Or Planescape: Torment.

Yeah but Planescape: Torment does so many things way better than Fallout.

It does some things better, certainly, but which things it does better can be considered questionable.

I do not disagree with the premise that a RPG can have shit combat, but as long as it's not too shit that the other parts of it cannot be enjoyed, and said other parts are god enough and plentiful enough to make the RPG good, it is good.

1) Shit combat is shit, there is no doubt about it.

2) That said, isn't the situation you described exactly the case with Planescape: Torment (with writing elevating the game as a whole)? And that's not just my opinion - there are a plenty of people on the Codex who share my opinion that Planescape: Torment is great RPG, except the combat part.

That being said, I do think Baldur's Gate has so many RPG elements in it that even though it doesn't have all of them, it can still compete with something like Fallout for the title of great RPG.

Certainly. I will point out I don't have problem with Baldur's Gate's RPG elements. More with how they were handled, compared to RPGs made by Black Isle Studios or Troika. That's literally it.

V:TMB is third person shit, and while I cannot pretend that I have given the game a proper attempt, man is it hard to imagine it being even in the same stratosphere as some other RPGs that aren't held back by their POV.

...?

I played the game pretty much exclusively in first-person perspective. Unless you mean using melee, but it doesn't make it "third person shit", considering out-of-combat exploration can take place in FPP.

Besides, my point isn't even that Bloodlines is [this] good, just that you can have initially buggy or unfinished games ending up as classics of the genre.

1) Does Baldur's Gate have enough RPG elements for it to be considered "one of the greatest RPGs" of all time? Note that I do not think it is the greatest RPG of all time, but the question is whether or not it should even qualify to be in the debate. As far as I understand you are claiming no, which is why Fallout and Arcanum automatically supersede it in the discussion?

It should absolutely qualify to be in the debate. That's not in question. The point of content is rather: should it win?

 

[Cryomancer]

fast-breeding hunter-gatherers like Orcs and Goblins get all their food? A

One lv 5 cleric and >> https://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/createFoodAndWater.htm

alignment needs to go the way of the dodo. Since its creation it produced nothing but interenet slapfights, and normal people don't need a note in the statblock to know that orc raiders are evil.

Disagreed. Alignment exists since 1e before the popularization of internet. And in D&D, law and chaos, good and evil, aren't merely concepts. Are cosmic FORCES. As real as gravity is IRL. Efreets tends to be lawful evil cuz the plane of fire is close to "LE" in a cosmic scale, Marids tends to be chaotic neutral and all about freedom cuz the plane of water is close to Limbo. Cosmic forces affects even "elemental" planes in D&D. Mechanus denizens should be 99,99999(...)% lawful and limbo denizens should be 99,9999(...)% chaotic.

If you remove alignment, you kill much of D&D cosmology. Kills the afterlife lore.

But I guess that this is good for WoTC. For them, only Sword Coast matters.

Also about alignment, I also don't think that it should exist in every single RPG, Warhammer fantasy and 40k(Dark Heresy) doesn't need it. All World of Darkness too, doesn't need it.

 

[NecroLord]

Alignments, for good or ill, are a part of D&D.
Just because dumb players cannot play and create characters of specific alignments doesn't mean the alignment system should be completely ditched.
Reworked a bit, maybe, but not ditched.