Baldur's Gate Baldur's Gate 3 RELEASE THREAD

[Barbarian]

I mean camping in places like the Bhaal temple ruins did feel very silly.

In the original series you could try resting in dangerous dungeons, but your rest would be often interrumpted by monsters or enemies. That was more sensible.

 

[jackofshadows]

The fact that these potions exist maybe signals that they originally planned to restrict rest more.

Yes, they have. Somewhere Swen's been telling about whiny testers who just hated the so called red zones (there still red glow on the minimap in such places right) so they cut them a lot but apparently Swen insisted that at least some still persist. Fucking testers.

 

[dukeofwoodberry]

Why do people think this game was so successful? For me the game is around a 7.5/10. Good but not great.

The combat is arguably the best aspect but gets boring later as the challenge is removed. Speaking of challenge, bad design decisions to have no constraints on long resting. I always get really bored by act 3 and I've only finished the game once despite making it to act 3 a handful of times (and it was an absolute chore to finish.)

Items are really well done. There are a lot of cool and unique items. Great job there.

The writing is pretty bad. Boring muh refugees. Main story is a disaster. Companions are mostly bad. The romance system was mega cringe. We're talking about peak cringe that I'm not sure any AAA game has ever reached.

So what reasons do you think this game became so successful? The high production values and pretty good combat?

 

[Barbarian]

So what reasons do you think this game became so successful? The high production values and pretty good combat?

These and reactivity + faithfulness to p&p. People love the original series in these forums but just think of how reactivity and actual roleplaying in Bg1 and Bg2 absolutely pales when compared to this game. It frequently acknowledges you class, race, origin and choices made previously, even if many times superficially. They really went all in on trying to replicate the tabletop experience(even down to dice rolls being visually represented and a narrator standing in for a dungeon master).

I agree that the writing isn't good at all, but it is serviceable. Only actually well written D&D game ever developed was Torment after all. The writing and plot are not so bad compared to the original series(if you take out all the faggotry and wokery off course).

There are overly cringe origins and companions(i.e: Karlach and Gale), but some were okay(Astarion and Shadowheart). Do these really pale in comparison to the likes of Aerie and Valygar? I mean the companions in the original games were also cliché and superficial.

It is at least a 9/10 game for the sum of its parts, and serious contender for best rpg ever developed like it or not.

 

[jackofshadows]

So what reasons do you think this game became so successful? The high production values and pretty good combat?

On this level of production values the competition is worse/non-existent.

 

[Old Hans]

The single only part of the game where you are penalized for resting is grymforge before you rescue Nere - don't remember details but resting before saving him results in the quest failing.

as far as I can tell, the timer only starts when you speak to Nere through the rubble. If you just ignore that, you can rest for 800 years and nere will still be trapped

 

[Barbarian]

Maybe the question you should ask yourself is, which rpgs are better than BG3? Objectively speaking.

The original series games don't beat it on any factor except nostalgia. Torment has infinitely superior writing and character design, but it has terrible combat and other issues.

Even recent contenders pale incredibly when you compare them to this game. Are you going to tell the games by Bioware, Obsidian and Owcuck were better than this?

 

[Old Hans]

Maybe the question you should ask yourself is, which rpgs are better than BG3? Objectively speaking.

The original series games don't beat it on any factor except nostalgia. Torment has infinitely superior writing and character design, but it has terrible combat and other issues.

Even recent contenders pale incredibly when you compare them to this game. Are you going to tell the games by Bioware, Obsidian and Owcuck were better than this?

There are some things in Kingmaker I liked better than BG3. For instance I thought the overworld map with travelling was better than the tiny BG3 maps, which leads to actually having to camp while you travel, unlike BG3 where it feels like you teleport to a pocket dimension camp site

 

[dukeofwoodberry]

So what reasons do you think this game became so successful? The high production values and pretty good combat?

These and reactivity + faithfulness to p&p. People love the original series in these forums but just think of how reactivity and actual roleplaying in Bg1 and Bg2 absolutely pales when compared to this game. It frequently acknowledges you class, race, origin and choices made previously, even if many times superficially. They really went all in on trying to replicate the tabletop experience(even down to dice rolls being visually represented and a narrator standing in for a dungeon master).

I agree that the writing isn't good at all, but it is serviceable. Only actually well written D&D game ever developed was Torment after all. The writing and plot are not so bad compared to the original series(if you take out all the faggotry and wokery off course).

There are overly cringe origins and companions(i.e: Karlach and Gale), but some were okay(Astarion and Shadowheart). Do these really pale in comparison to the likes of Aerie and Valygar? I mean the companions in the original games were also cliché and superficial.

It is at least a 9/10 game for the sum of its parts, and serious contender for best rpg ever developed like it or not.

The fact you only have two ways to play: goody two shoes faggot or crazy murder hobo definitely knock it down. What's the reactivity to evil? You killed/didn't save this guy thus they aren't here?

Shadowtits quest in an example of a very well done quest with satisfying conclusion and consequences both ways but that is a rarity in this game. Usually the C&C is done very poorly. I can't get away from the fact that by act 3 I'm usually extremely bored and can't finish the game. Besides the combat challenge dropping off (forgiveable,) the main issue is I'm not invested in the story or my companions.

 

[Barbarian]

Maybe the question you should ask yourself is, which rpgs are better than BG3? Objectively speaking.

The original series games don't beat it on any factor except nostalgia. Torment has infinitely superior writing and character design, but it has terrible combat and other issues.

Even recent contenders pale incredibly when you compare them to this game. Are you going to tell the games by Bioware, Obsidian and Owcuck were better than this?

There are some things in Kingmaker I liked better than BG3. For instance I thought the overworld map with travelling was better than the tiny BG3 maps, which leads to actually having to camp while you travel, unlike BG3 where it feels like you teleport to a pocket dimension camp site

Didn't they have a 2d BG2 style hand-drawn map at some point?

So what reasons do you think this game became so successful? The high production values and pretty good combat?

These and reactivity + faithfulness to p&p. People love the original series in these forums but just think of how reactivity and actual roleplaying in Bg1 and Bg2 absolutely pales when compared to this game. It frequently acknowledges you class, race, origin and choices made previously, even if many times superficially. They really went all in on trying to replicate the tabletop experience(even down to dice rolls being visually represented and a narrator standing in for a dungeon master).

I agree that the writing isn't good at all, but it is serviceable. Only actually well written D&D game ever developed was Torment after all. The writing and plot are not so bad compared to the original series(if you take out all the faggotry and wokery off course).

There are overly cringe origins and companions(i.e: Karlach and Gale), but some were okay(Astarion and Shadowheart). Do these really pale in comparison to the likes of Aerie and Valygar? I mean the companions in the original games were also cliché and superficial.

It is at least a 9/10 game for the sum of its parts, and serious contender for best rpg ever developed like it or not.

The fact you only have two ways to play: goody two shoes faggot or crazy murder hobo definitely knock it down. What's the reactivity to evil? You killed/didn't save this guy thus they aren't here?

Shadowtits quest in an example of a very well done quest with satisfying conclusion and consequences both ways but that is a rarity in this game. Usually the C&C is done very poorly. I can't get away from the fact that by act 3 I'm usually extremely bored and can't finish the game. Besides the combat challenge dropping off (forgiveable,) the main issue is I'm not invested in the story or my companions.

Well most origin quests have diverse satisfying conclusions/endings which involve a ton of C&C. The dumb exception being Karlach(who is just a very cringe character overall). I never did an evil playthrough but I know there are some pretty whacky ramifications for doing so(for instance siding with Balthazar ends up with him trying to turn you into a tadpole zombie, and you end up fighting tadpole zombie versions of Dror Ragzlin, Glut and Minthara among other dead characters you met previously).

Even for the "gather your allies" final fight quest you can end with Ethel and Sarevok fighting by your side as allies if you go evil, along other crazy stuff. That is a lot more developed than say the "evil" path in BG2, which basically only changed your quest giver from shadow thieves to vampires and the entire quest played out the same. It is undeveloped compared to good/neutral paths, but they seem to be adding to it next patch.

I get bored early chapter 3 because progression stops, but I'm hoping mods will fix that(increased difficulty + level cap).

 

[Yosharian]

Do these really pale in comparison to the likes of Aerie and Valygar? I mean the companions in the original games were also cliché and superficial.

It's the quality of the dialogue that is the issue. Go back and watch some banters on YT featuring the best companions (hell, even the worse) from BG2. Then watch some banter from BG3. Compare the quality of the language used. It is night and day. BG2 dialogue actually feels like a fantasy game. BG3 dialogue is like some zoomers took a break from Fortnite to jump into an isekai adventure.

 

[Yosharian]

Examples:

Keldorn talking to other companions


Karlach doing Karlach things


Granted I took Karlach who is definitely the worst example from BG3 to use, but still. The other companions are not much better.

It goes far beyond 'oh this companion is simply not my cup of tea' or 'i have a personal dislike of this companion', it's more like the companions in BG3 are objectively not written correctly according to the setting they are in

Apologists for this writing are either just plain stupid or they just haven't experienced well-written dialogue in a fantasy setting

 

[Barbarian]

Well you did pick the most "serious" BG2 companion and the most cringe BG3 companion. Most bg3 banter is okay generic fantasy conversation. And not much different from the banter in bg2.

If I compared this to "HEYA IT'S IMOEN!" or Minsc talking about hiding boo in his butt it would obviously come on top.

 

[Hydro]

Yeah reactivity right, but why would you want a reactivity given the plot and writing are shit? BG has great plot, it is actually interesting. This Belgian gay slop is embarrassing to digest story-wise. Furthermore BG3’s reactivity while seemingly vast is in fact very shallow.

 

[PunchYouInTheFace]

^another hidrocuck cope.

 

[The Bishop]

It is at least a 9/10 game for the sum of its parts, and serious contender for best rpg ever developed like it or not.

Unfortunately, many of those parts don't gel very well.

Like the party banter is nice in theory, yet you end up missing most of it because the gameplay requires you to hunt around with your camera away from your group. So you end up hearing the end of a phrase or some muffled babbling. Camp conversations are nice in theory, but since you also use camp to regain spell points, very often those conversations are unwelcome. Camp stuff ends up out of place and breaks the flow.

Tactical combat is nice in theory, but I never ever played a game in which it was so difficult to just start combat on your terms. How do I even start a fight? I never thought it would be a pressing issue in any game, yet it is in BG3. In my fight with Sarevok I separated Lae'zel to put her on a flank to so she can attack from an elevated position. And the game just plain refused to consider her a part of the fight. And since I was done putting up with this shit, this is how the epic fight with Sarevok went for me - unlimited attacks from a fighter that just stayed in real time when the rest went turn based.

And finally, you'd imagine that lots of content and C&C would create a perfect roleplaying environment, where you just make organic choices and roll with whatever comes out of it. Except in BG3 you end up with the most bizarre uncertainty if you try to just play organically with no foreknowledge: you don't know what to expect. And I don't mean from the environment - unpredictable environment makes perfect sense. You don't know what to expect from yourself. There is constantly something that you think you should be able to do, but is not implemented, yet instead you're constantly presented with choices that make no sense for you whatsoever. And you can't even back out of those choices.

And I get it, you can't possibly implement every option imaginable, yet the truth of the matter is that the game doesn't work very well if played and discovered organically. Save/load is often the only good way to scout your options. Which means roleplaying goes by the wayside.

So while I agree that BG3 is probably the most content rich RPG ever created, the overall experience is not greater than the sum of its parts, it's rather the opposite.

 

[ERYFKRAD]

How do I even start a fight?

Uh, Ctrl+click?
Or are you referring to something else?

 

[The Bishop]

How do I even start a fight?

Uh, Ctrl+click?
Or are you referring to something else?

Just read the part where I describe my battle with Sarevok. It's easy to just attack somebody while staying as a blob. But even basic positioning is super annoying and unpredictable.

 

[Zed Duke of Banville]

...
My first honor mode run I remember saving "potions of angelic slumber" for house of hope since you can't rest there. While I did use them, it wasn't that necessary.
...
Either that or restricted resting in dungeons or certain areas(as in the house of hope).

The House of Hope has an infinite use restoration pool, available after you win a certain (not too difficult) combat.

Why do people think this game was so successful? For me the game is around a 7.5/10. Good but not great.
...
So what reasons do you think this game became so successful? The high production values and pretty good combat?

Answered one year and 558 pages ago:

Lessons developers should learn from Baldur's Gate 3:

• Tactical, turn-based combat sells
• An RPG should have at least a semblance of exploration
• A considerable amount of interactivity with the world can be accomplished, even in a game with turn-based combat
• Quests can have various Choices & Consequences associated with them, and there can also be consequences for player actions outside quests
• RPGs can have a fairly non-linear structure

Lessons developers will learn from Baldur's Gate 3:

• Sex sells, especially with viral marketing
• Aside from a single player-generated character, the party members should be pre-generated and have ludicrously convoluted backstories
• Vast amounts of money should be spent on voice-acting and motion-capture, especially for those pre-generated companions
• Embrace the most generic fantasy setting possible
• Players don't care about basing your game on a poor ruleset, such as "D&D 5th edition"

 

[ERYFKRAD]

How do I even start a fight?

Uh, Ctrl+click?
Or are you referring to something else?

Just read the part where I describe my battle with Sarevok. It's easy to just attack somebody while staying as a blob. But even basic positioning is super annoying and unpredictable.

I dunno man, I did roughly the same thing and it worked.

 

[The Bishop]

How do I even start a fight?

Uh, Ctrl+click?
Or are you referring to something else?

Just read the part where I describe my battle with Sarevok. It's easy to just attack somebody while staying as a blob. But even basic positioning is super annoying and unpredictable.

I dunno man, I did roughly the same thing and it worked.

Well, that's the problem. Sometimes it works. Sometimes it doesn't. Sometimes a detached character just rolls for initiative and joins the battle. But sometimes it rolls for initiative and skip the first turn for some reason. And sometimes it doesn't join combat at all even when attacking. And you never know which one it's going to be this time.

Another beautiful interaction in BG3: if you split your group, then force your characters in TB mode before starting combat, then enter combat with one of them, the rest will go back to real time. Makes you particularly happy when you find the potions and spells you used on them already expired.

 

[Yosharian]

If I compared this to "HEYA IT'S IMOEN!" or Minsc talking about hiding boo in his butt it would obviously come on top.

1) that's bg1, I said BG2
2) no it wouldn't, even Minsc is written to be setting-appropriate compared to the most serious BG3 companion

Sorry to say but the examples you picked show that you don't know very good fantasy dialogue

 

[NaturallyCarnivorousSheep]

Bg3 da poop Dragon Age:Origins now that's a gayem t. cuckdex

 

[Yosharian]

From the BG3 video posted above:

"The shadowlands...makes back home in the underdark seem quaint"
"I won't have to worry about the sun, at least"
"Even in the Underdark, I never saw gloom like this. It's unsettling."
"Alas, it's the only path to Moonrise Towers. We have to push into the dark."

"So, the Nightsong is key to Ketheric's invulnerability"
"Nightsong - not exactly a name I'd associate with the Absolute"
"Its powers could prove useful. Especially if turned against Ketheric himself"
"Finding it may be easier said than done"

First BG2 Underdark video I found on YT:

"Things go well on the surface. The temple of their false god has been defiled."
"I am pleased. My revenge will soon come"
"We did not act for your benefit, Irenicus, though... you did offer some interesting opportunities"
"Yes, Matron Mother. Excuse my careless words."
"Our first prisoners arrive, Matron Mother"
"These two rank high among the surface scum, Matron. What is to be their fate?"
"Their presence sickens me. Kill them"

"So... I am in my homeland once again. Already I feel how unwelcome it has become. My eyes are no longer used to its darkness and my senses to the hint of the threat around every corner.
We must tread with caution, <CHARNAME>. There are, no doubt, drow in this place. Along with beholders, illithids, kuo-toa, and perhaps even worse.
The denizens here will expect no mercy and will offer none. If we are to survive long enough to find your Irenicus, we must be stronger than any of them"

If you can't see the difference in quality between these two sets of dialogues (of which, the BG2 dialogues were randomly selected, while the BG3 ones were specifically selected and aren't representative of the overall game at all, most of it is much worse than that), then you simply don't know what good writing is. That's ok, it's to be expected that not everyone has been exposed to good fantasy writing. But don't piss in my ear and call it rain. There is simply no comparison, either in terms of complexity or the variety of words used. BG3's dialogue is written by inexperienced and young writers who haven't been exposed to higher quality writing from setting-authentic works of art, and it's written for low-IQ low attention-span idiots who can't be bothered to read sentences more than 5 words long. In other words, it's written for the lowest common denominator, otherwise people will just skip it - they won't read it, and they won't listen to it, because it's 'boring'.

BG2 on the other hand sounds like people who actually speak like they're in a fantasy setting. Long, complex sentences are used. There is a high variety of vocabulary. There's this, how can I put it, roundabout way of saying things that evokes a long-forgotten/long-abandoned way of saying things. BG1 has its share of anachronistic moments, but in BG2 they really toned it down and kept it consistent. Even Minsc, who talks like an idiot, still has the style of speaking that is reminiscent of old fantasy stories, rather than this nu-fantasy speak that is deployed in every modern RPG.

It's a cancer that infects everything. Nothing is written properly these days, whether it's Larian or Owlcat, it all sounds like a fucking zoomer wrote it while slurping a coffee in their local Starbucks.

 

[NaturallyCarnivorousSheep]

BG2 on the other hand sounds like people who actually speak like they're in a fantasy setting

Ogrok kill.