Baldur's Gate Baldur's Gate 3 RELEASE THREAD

[GloomFrost]

Role playing "evil" characters is way better in WOTR.

you mean "role playing" evil characters, given that wotr is 99% combat

Fake News and you know it.

 

[kangaxx]

BG3 is certainly better than WOTR in my opinion. I don't think it's even close.

If you prever combat over narrative, and Pathfinder over 5E, then it is close. WotR isn't bad.

It's a matter of opinion of course, but I much prefer the BG3 combat. I enjoyed PFKM but really didn't like WOTR. That crusade management stuff was an abomination, it will single-handedly stop me from ever replaying the game.

 

[sebas]

I don't know what others understand from roleplaying but the skill check usage in BG3 is the best roleplaying I've had since...VtM?

 

[jf8350143]

If you free the gith prince, he will blame you for slaughter his guards, and you have no choice but to admit you were wrong before.

But if you kill the emperor the first time you met him, you get a instant game over. So there is nothing you can do here, which sucks ass.

All they have to do is let you kill the emperor and let the prince protect you from the elder brain, then go get the hammer and free him so you can fight the brain together. They don't even have to add any extra content, all the pieces are there. At least make it a available option for player playing as gith.

But they just have to shove the emperor in your face, and of course including a romance scene which comes out of nowhere.

 

[whydoibother]

I don't know what others understand from roleplaying but the skill check usage in BG3 is the best roleplaying I've had since...VtM?

In combat, and in dialogue, and in the world too. Compare to the Shadowrun games, where you have 1-2 things to interact with on any given level, all other interactions are fighting or talking between characters. Might as well be on a flat empty plain.

 

[whydoibother]

let you kill the emperor and let the prince protect you from the elder brain

I see what you mean, but this practically locks you out of half the endings, in the middle of the game. Not sure its a worthwhile compromise.
I definitely think the Guardian/Balduran plot is the weakest writing in the entirety of the game, however. And much of it is unnecessary, too. Could've just been a rival Grand Designer. Could've just been an opportunistic evil that wants to hijack the Big Brain, rather than a wholesome adventurer. Fits both the lore and the fandom surrounding mindflayers and tadpoles better, as well as being both simpler to write, script and understand.

 

[jf8350143]

let you kill the emperor and let the prince protect you from the elder brain

I see what you mean, but this practically locks you out of half the endings, in the middle of the game. Not sure its a worthwhile compromise.
I definitely think the Guardian/Balduran plot is the weakest writing in the entirety of the game, however. And much of it is unnecessary, too. Could've just been a rival Grand Designer. Could've just been an opportunistic evil that wants to hijack the Big Brain, rather than a wholesome adventurer. Fits both the lore and the fandom surrounding mindflayers and tadpoles better, as well as being both simpler to write, script and understand.

I don't mean you have to kill emperor, make it a choice. If you kill the guards then the game proceeds as usual, but if you kill the emperor then you still get to continue the game, just having the prince protecting you.

It doesn't even matter if you lost access to some content or not. That's the whole point of choices and consequences. Killing the tieflings locks you out of bunch of content as well with little to no reward and Larian didn't seem to care.

 

[Jaedar]

BG3 is certainly better than WOTR in my opinion. I don't think it's even close.

If you prever combat over narrative, and Pathfinder over 5E, then it is close. WotR isn't bad.

Based on my impressions so far, wotr is far and above BG3 if you're looking for a "real" rpg. If you're looking for a more casual larpfest then BG3 is superior.
But I may change my mind on this if and when I play more BG3.

 

[Swen]

BG3 is certainly better than WOTR in my opinion. I don't think it's even close.

If you prever combat over narrative, and Pathfinder over 5E, then it is close. WotR isn't bad.

Based on my impressions so far, wotr is far and above BG3 if you're looking for a "real" rpg. If you're looking for a more casual larpfest then BG3 is superior.
But I may change my mind on this if and when I play more BG3.

BG3 is more of an rpg than any game Owlcat shat out. When it comes to C&C Larian games are king.

 

[dukeofwoodberry]

The strength of BG3 is it captures the tabletop experience extremely well for a video game. You can get creative with spells, use dialogue to solve problems, and I like how combat is more tactics based.

But the writing is pretty shit after act 1 and the party members are pure shit. Shadow pussy, lezael and astarion are the only decent ones, emphasis on decent. The other ones are insufferable with terrible back stories. It's cape shit writing. "He's the greatest wizard in the world, having sex with the goddess of magic and he also has a bomb in his chest." That's childish as hell.

For a game trying to recreate the tabletop experience, pretty big flaw to have a shit party when a group adventuring is what d&d is all about

 

[jf8350143]

The strength of BG3 is it captures the tabletop experience extremely well for a video game. You can get creative with spells, use dialogue to solve problems, and I like how combat is more tactics based.

But the writing is pretty shit after act 1 and the party members are pure shit. Shadow pussy, lezael and astarion are the only decent ones, emphasis on decent. The other ones are insufferable with terrible back stories. It's cape shit writing. "He's the greatest wizard in the world, having sex with the goddess of magic and he also has a bomb in his chest." That's childish as hell.

For a game trying to recreate the tabletop experience, pretty big flaw to have a shit party when a group adventuring is what d&d is all about

TThe problem of half the companions is lack of content.

Kalach's personal quest is just talk to this smith guy twice and kill this main story boss, and that's it. Her romances has more content than that. Same goes with Gale, his quest is literally just talk, talk, read the book and do some more talking, then it didn't even has a conclusion because you never get the crown(unless you are playing as him).

The only exception is Wyll, he has plenty of content, but he is just straight up boring. Being turned into a devil is a premise with potenials, but they never do anything with it. He could be a human all the way through and his story would be exactly the same.

Again I blame Larian for cutting all the interesting things from act 3 for this.

 

[whydoibother]

But the writing is pretty shit after act 1 and the party members are pure shit.

Unfavorably comparing Baldur's Gate 3's writing to its peers: Solasta, WotR, Deadfire, etc, is pure cope. It can be lacking in scope (max lvl 12, not all subclasses and spells, not all enemy types), and maybe you prefer the other systems combat mechanically and tactically, but in terms of visual, audio and narrative presentation, and just having a meaningful interactive plot, BG3 is by far the better game.
I think you fall for the classic mistake of judging how good a character is written based on how much you'd be friends with them in real life. AKA the tumblr blog girl way of judging characters.

It doesn't even matter if you lost access to some content or not. That's the whole point of choices and consequences. Killing the tieflings locks you out of bunch of content as well with little to no reward and Larian didn't seem to care.

Right, but it would be a decision you make in the middle of the game, that locks you out of some endings for the game, before you could figure out how one relates to the other.
I hate it when you forget to pull a lever in level 5, so now you can't open the door in level 17, and I think I'd hate this too if I did it in my first playthrough.

 

[dukeofwoodberry]

But the writing is pretty shit after act 1 and the party members are pure shit.

Unfavorably comparing Baldur's Gate 3's writing to its peers: Solasta, WotR, Deadfire, etc, is pure cope. It can be lacking in scope (max lvl 12, not all subclasses and spells, not all enemy types), and maybe you prefer the other systems combat mechanically and tactically, but in terms of visual, audio and narrative presentation, and just having a meaningful interactive plot, BG3 is by far the better game.
I think you fall for the classic mistake of judging how good a character is written based on how much you'd be friends with them in real life. AKA the tumblr blog girl way of judging them.

Not true at all. I gave Asterion credit as decently written even though I personally don't enjoy the character. I'm just objectively measuring the quality of their writing and it's shit. Wyll and Karlach are both absolutely terrible. Gayle is boring and bland but his back story is extremely childish and stupid. I like how pathfinder has more grounded back stories and it definitely has better written companions overall.

Presentation is BG3 no contest. That's different than writing quality though.

 

[sebas]

That's childish as hell.

Gayle has the dumbest backstory I have ever heard in an RPG. It's even more offensive than his butfukkery. I have newfound respect for Amiri.

 

[Orud]

If you prever combat over narrative, and Pathfinder over 5E, then it is close. WotR isn't bad.

While I'm more than willing to debate Kingmaker vs BG3, since both 3.xE and 5E have their merits and downsides, I just cannot put WoTR even close to the same level. Mythic levels are bolted on nonsense in the style of D&D's 'epic' levels, disrupting the underlying systems for the worse.

Is WoTR good? Yes. Is it comparable to BG3 or Kingmaker? No, not even close.

 

[Jaedar]

Unfavorably comparing Baldur's Gate 3's writing to its peers: Solasta, WotR, Deadfire, etc, is pure cope.

We shall see. So far the writing has been nothing special, although it also hasn't been particularly cringe either. Wotr has very uneven writing, some shit, some great, mostly not very special.

 

[Fedora Master]

BG3 is designed by a pervert GM who just wants you to enter his MAGICAL REALM.
WotR is designed by an asshole GM who wants you dead AND in his magical realm.

 

[Orud]

While BG3 might outpace most RPG's when it comes to character writing (and I don't just mean party members).... I do think it falls short compared to many when it comes to main story structure.

I agree with many people saying that they 'lost the plot in act 3' because that's exactly what happens. Act 3 is all over the place and only at the last minute remembers that an ending needs to be setup. Even PoE did it better.

 

[Sunri]

 

[whydoibother]

>he doesn't have Gale's hand to present

 

[dukeofwoodberry]

While BG3 might outpace most RPG's when it comes to character writing (and I don't just mean party members).... I do think it falls short compared to many when it comes to main story structure.

I agree with many people saying that they 'lost the plot in act 3' because that's exactly what happens. Act 3 is all over the place and only at the last minute remembers that an ending needs to be setup. Even PoE did it better.

Bg3 has good character writing?

 

[Swen]

While BG3 might outpace most RPG's when it comes to character writing (and I don't just mean party members).... I do think it falls short compared to many when it comes to main story structure.

I agree with many people saying that they 'lost the plot in act 3' because that's exactly what happens. Act 3 is all over the place and only at the last minute remembers that an ending needs to be setup. Even PoE did it better.

Bg3 has good character writing?

Besides Karlach it's fine. If you're impressed by Mass Effect then BG3 is good.

 

[Orud]

Bg3 has good character writing?

Outpace, meaning better. You can't be serious if you want to imply that WoTR, Kingmaker or even Solasta's character 'writing' comes even close. They have a better focused and structured story, but any character writing clearly takes a backseat in those.

 

[volklore]

Bg3 has good character writing?

Outpace, meaning better. You can't be serious if you want to imply that WoTR, Kingmaker or even Solasta's character 'writing' comes even close. They have a better focused and structured story, but any character writing clearly takes a backseat in those.

You mean in the sense they have more reactions, interractions and so on ?
Yes sure. I still think kingmaker and WoTR have better casts though. Most of the characters in BG3 I didn't really want to know more about. Except for Lae'zel and Astarion which I found really good throughout. Most interesting thing about BG3 is having the characters more closely tied to the main plot even though only lae'zel is really involved in it directly.

 

[gurugeorge]

Better game: BG3 or WotR?

WOTR is less offensively woke and the woke is less offensively in your face and technicolor, partly because there are no comparable "cinematic" episodes in WOTR, and WOTR (in a trope) lacks the orc NPCs with pink hair and metallic eyeliner. There isn't as much forcing of degeneracy on your rp (only really a couple of the Sosiel convos, that's about it, whereas in BG3 the invitations to buttsecs are nigh constant and ubiquitous).

BG3 has better exploration and much better environmental/system reactivity, and overall a better sense of immersion (although a lot of that's to do with the miles-better graphics - enhanced even more by the WASD/camera mods btw).

WOTR has better combat and a better build system (though perhaps too fussy at times, there's something to be said for 5e streamlining on occasion, it just goes the other way and is too simple); the mythics are more interesting to build and play with than the illithid powers.

Story and cc-wise, I think they're about even. There are definitely a few weighty decisions you can make in both games.

Encounter design, I have to say that BG3 edges out here. WOTR is no slouch, there are a few very cool set pieces just like in BG3, but each encounter in BG3 stands out more, whereas there are a lot of generic trash fights in WOTR - something I don't hate personally, but in terms of per capita good encounter percentage vs bad, BG3 wins out, if you're being strict about it.

Personally, I remember really loving PFK more than BG3 at the time, whereas WOTR I liked less, but that was mainly because I found the demons a more boring adversary than the fey, who were brilliantly sinister in the first game. BG3's villains, with only a few exceptions like Raphael, don't really stand out as much - although it's difficult here, because the way they're rendered in realism and technicolour makes them all "stand out" more in purely graphics terms, but just conceptually and in terms of writing most of them are less interesting in BG3, even despite being more fleshed-out in some cases in terms of writing bulk.

WOTR's story is pretty coherent, whereas BG3's rambles a bit and feels disconnected in places, with the quest flow not quite supporting it.

About the same level of bugginess on release, they'll probably have about the same level of polish when they're in their final form.

I should say ofc that the VO in BG3 is a billion times better than in WOTR, but that's kind of a "cheat," like the far-superior graphics. It does make every little encounter even with minor NPCs more "real-seeming" and occasionally very entertaining. But it's really a side-issue in the grand scheme of things.

Difficult to say. Personally I give the laurel to BG3, in terms of there being a lot of shit in both games, but the good outweighing the bad in both games. But only just, and mainly because I'm a graphics whore. WOTR is a considerable game in its own right. And if the comparison was between PFK and BG3 (relative to time and immersion/enthusiasm for the games as I was playing them), I would say PFK.