Baldur's Gate Baldur's Gate 3 RELEASE THREAD

[Barbarian]

where a great effort was made to be faithful to tabletop

Yup, that great that people had to make thousands of threads so that Larian reverted their homebrew retardation. And even that didn’t help much (say hi to shove as a bonus action)

Most changes were decent. Like making some shitty classes actually hold their own(i.e: Monk). The shove change is probably due to their love of verticality and ample use in game. If it were an action the player would be inclined to rarely ever use it.

It is still by far the most "hardcore" adaptation. Reminder that the original series was "TB with pause" and bothered very little with actual roleplay and choice and consequence. Outside for the choice "class stronghold" questline in BG2 it didn't even acknowledge your chosen class in dialogs - not even for flavor.

 

[Harthwain]

Sorry if my words made you think like this. This is not trolling, I swear. But there are aspects of this game that I don't like. And I don't think I should be silent about them. I spent quite a lot of time in this game, so I think I have the right to say what I think about it.

It is not about being silent. It is about you saying "it is not realistic" when realism isn't really playing the part here. Actions have difficulty level and in order to succeed at them you need to roll high enough. That's it. Having a fully deterministic system would be boring, especially on repeated playthrough. It's not like the system doesn't have ways to mitigate the skill checks' difficulty (as Barbarian mentioned already).

And yet you dare to judge others of "having a really bad taste" when talking about the classic RPG system? On a forum dedicated to RPGs (I will remind you, it is called "rpgcodex")? How is this not trolling? Add to that the fact that your account is barely 1-month-old and it should be no wonder it smells really fishy reading your posts.

 

[ShiningSoldier]

Sorry if my words made you think like this. This is not trolling, I swear. But there are aspects of this game that I don't like. And I don't think I should be silent about them. I spent quite a lot of time in this game, so I think I have the right to say what I think about it.

It is not about being silent. It is about you saying "it is not realistic" when realism isn't really playing the part here. Actions have difficulty level and in order to succeed at them you need to roll high enough. That's it. Having a fully deterministic system would be boring, especially on repeated playthrough. It's not like the system doesn't have ways to mitigate the skill checks' difficulty (as Barbarian mentioned already).

And yet you dare to judge others of "having a really bad taste" when talking about the classic RPG system? On a forum dedicated to RPGs (I will remind you, it is called "rpgcodex")? How is this not trolling? Add to that the fact that your account is barely 1-month-old and it should be no wonder it smells really fishy reading your posts.

You say that it's not about realism, but in the last 3 pages there were tons of arguments that thee D&D system is realistic:

This isn't perfect but replicates real life somewhat.

for example.
And about me saying that another user is having a bad taste - could you please check the post I was responding to? This guy literally told me that I have to, I quote:

maybe you should just fuck yourself

What you want me to respond to this? Give him a bouquet of flowers?

 

[Harthwain]

You say that it's not about realism, but in the last 3 pages there were tons of arguments that thee D&D system is realistic:

This isn't perfect but replicates real life somewhat.

for example.

This isn't an argument about it being realistic (a dice roll is still an abstraction). This is an argument about trying to incorporate "luck" or "chance" having an impact on player's actions. The system still makes it more likely for you to succeed when you are good at something (it is easier to roll anything above 1 than it is to roll nothing but 20), but the possibility to fumble is always there. For it to be actually realistic you'd have to have more systems to help simulate the factors impacting whatever you're doing (hunger, stress, etc.).

That said, more RPGs need interesting consequences for failure. This is a significant aspect that made Disco Elysium interesting and helped people to stick with their choices, in contrast to the vast majority of other RPGs, where the binary results only encourage reloading a save as the only outcome of a failed skill check is being locked out of content, often without an alternative way to try and get things done.

And about me saying that another user is having a bad taste - could you please check the post I was responding to? This guy literally told me that I have to, I quote:

maybe you should just fuck yourself

What you want me to respond to this? Give him a bouquet of flowers?

You should've told him to fuck himself back. I may not like some opinions people have, but I do acknowledge they have the right to have them, even when I think they are wrong for having them.

 

[Hydro]

The shove change is probably due to their love of verticality and ample use in game. If it were an action the player would be inclined to rarely ever use it.

Pretty sure lariantards are happy

It is still by far the most "hardcore" adaptation

Ahem Solasta

Outside for the choice "class stronghold" questline in BG2 it didn't even acknowledge your chosen class in dialogs - not even for flavor.

And yet BG is cult classic and BG3 is shite for furries. Hmm I wonder how come

 

[Barbarian]

Solasta is a boring game - fact is in a narrative based game such as anything D&D(be it tabletop or digital) you can't have just a combat game with a superficial narrative skeleton. It is just a bad proposition.

Just look at the list of games lauded on these forums - Torment is probably the most highly rated game here and combat is a detractor on the game.

And yet BG is cult classic and BG3 is shite for furries. Hmm I wonder how come

Have you played BG3? Are you a furry? I am not one, at least.

 

[Harthwain]

Solasta is a boring game - fact is in a narrative based game such as anything D&D(be it tabletop or digital) you can't have just a combat game with a superficial narrative skeleton. It is just a bad proposition.

Just look at the list of games lauded on these forums - Torment is probably the most highly rated game here and combat is a detractor on the game.

Icewind Dale is a pretty much a combat game (with a rather simple narrative). It has some breaks from exploring its dungeons, but it's all about cleaning up places you go to. That said, it is quite high on the list (#20).

Underrail is #12. From the developer's mouth: "The game is focused on combat and exploration". He adds: "That said there's other stuff in it as well, it's not a dungeon crawl", but it doesn't change the fact that focus of the game is on combat.

Interestingly enough, Solasta has Very Positive reviews on Steam (88% out of 16,824), despite being considered mediocre on the Codex. That's a pretty good result.

 

[Barbarian]

Battle Brothers is one of my favorite games and I have nothing against combat focused games.

That said I have never understood the appeal of Icewind Dale, and I think it is a game that has aged terribly. I much preferred the Baldur's Gate series and still do. If I had to choose games to replay from the two series it would be SoA and ToB.

 

[Harthwain]

That said I have never understood the appeal of Icewind Dale, and I think it is a game that has aged terribly. I much preferred the Baldur's Gate series and still do. If I had to choose games to replay from the two series it would be SoA and ToB.

Icewind Dale has a nice if simple story that's a good entry into the DnD adventure.

However, I do agree that Baldur's Gate 2 feels a lot better, because there are plenty of locations to visit and people to interact with (including NPCs who have their own interests and personalities), making it feel much more alive as a result. In fact, I enjoyed getting sidetracked simply to explore the world.

 

[Hydro]

I am not one, at least.

Ok furry

 

[dukeofwoodberry]

Solasta is a boring game - fact is in a narrative based game such as anything D&D(be it tabletop or digital) you can't have just a combat game with a superficial narrative skeleton. It is just a bad proposition.

Just look at the list of games lauded on these forums - Torment is probably the most highly rated game here and combat is a detractor on the game.

And yet BG is cult classic and BG3 is shite for furries. Hmm I wonder how come

Have you played BG3? Are you a furry? I am not one, at least.

Bg3 have bottom tier story and companions though. Like it's really fucking bad. The combat is good until it gets too easy and the amount of ways you have to approach situations is nice too. But the writing is shit. I could never get immersed or invested in this game. I'll admit I'm not a DND fan and I find the universe pretty boring and kind of lame actually so part of it is the setting but the writing is still poor.

I was thinking the other day about how peak cringe the mind flayer romance is. It's worse than the bear but not talked about much

 

[Barbarian]

It is not Shakespeare, but most of it is comparable to the quality of the original companions and quests. Astarian, Laezel and Shadowtits for instance, they have proper character progression and satisfying varied endings to their stories, you could argue they go much further in engagement than the original companions. Likewise with most quests.

In retrospect most major questlines in BG2 were also arguably pretty cringe. Like breaking into the insane asylum for wizards, or being cornered into working with either the shadowthieves or the obviously not evil at all vampire bitch. The difference is that in BG3 there are much more branching paths and variety of outcomes for the quests.

Cheap fantasy writing 101 basically. Not like 100% of D&D novels aren't generic cringefests basically, even the more popular and entertaining of the lot(i.e: Drizzt books).

Squid/Bear zoophilia I haven't even engaged in. It is entirely avoidable after all. My take is that it was a combination of belgian humor and clever shock marketing.

 

[dukeofwoodberry]

It is not Shakespeare, but most of it is comparable to the quality of the original companions and quests. Astarian, Laezel and Shadowtits for instance, they have proper character progression and satisfying varied endings to their stories, you could argue they go much further in engagement than the original companions. Likewise with most quests.

In retrospect most major questlines in BG2 were also arguably pretty cringe. Like breaking into the insane asylum for wizards, or being cornered into working with either the shadowthieves or the obviously not evil at all vampire bitch. The difference is that in BG3 there are much more branching paths and variety of outcomes for the quests.

Cheap fantasy writing 101 basically. Not like 100% of D&D novels aren't generic cringefests basically, even the more popular and entertaining of the lot(i.e: Drizzt books).

Squid/Bear zoophilia I haven't even engaged in. It is entirely avoidable after all. My take is that it was a combination of belgian humor and clever shock marketing.

Sure you can chalk up the had writing to generic fantasy 101 or whatever. But is that acceptable in a game held in such high regard? That's a big reason the game is an 8/10 for me and not this masterpiece many claim. Games like deux ex, kotor 1/2, mass effect 1, fallout 1/2, planetscape the witcher and more have really good writing and companions/npcs/villains that put this game to shame. You could say bg3 has better gameplay but that's like half the score. The other have is the writing, characters and story. When it is lacking in half of what makes a great game, I don't understand all the praise.

Getting specifics in companions I agree with the 3 you listed as being decent and also like Minthara. Laezel is kind of underrated and has a pretty good arc. SH could have been a lot better if all these snowflakes in early testing didn't cry about her being too cold. My main complaint is how she doesn't act any different regardless of the path you take with her. Shar SH should be less sweet than Selune but her personality is basically identical. One of the best examples at BG3 failing at C&C.

 

[Barbarian]

Isn't Torment the only D&D game with actual good writing? Arguably Mask of the Betrayer too but I didn't enjoy it nearly as much as others here did.

If you made a list BG3 would probably come out in the top positions despite all the cringe, because the bar is set so low. It had some highlights. Raphael and Ethel were pretty decent antagonists for instance. Als npcs like Rolan, Mayrina, Khaga and Zevlor, despite not being particularly memorable at least had a nice and complete character arc with different outcomes depending on the player input(and that were carried throughout the game, as opposed to the usual gimmick of having only one interaction in one quest).

 

[Lemming42]

Sure you can chalk up the had writing to generic fantasy 101 or whatever. But is that acceptable in a game held in such high regard? That's a big reason the game is an 8/10 for me and not this masterpiece many claim. Games like deux ex, kotor 1/2, mass effect 1, fallout 1/2, planetscape the witcher and more have really good writing and companions/npcs/villains that put this game to shame. You could say bg3 has better gameplay but that's like half the score. The other have is the writing, characters and story. When it is lacking in half of what makes a great game, I don't understand all the praise.

I dunno, of the ones you mentioned I think I prefer BG3's writing to The Witcher (which I can't stand), Mass Effect 1 and KOTOR 1 (BioWare's writing bores the shit out of me), and Fallout 2 (funny when you're 12, less so 25 years later, and does a lot of damage to the Fallout setting).

BG3's writing isn't even bad, it's just Saturday morning cartoon stuff, a bunch of larger-than-life heroes out on an adventure where most things are rather black and white - so, basically, Dungeons & Dragons. The plot is a thin excuse to be shuttled through all these exotic locations, meeting bizarre characters and ending up in surreal situations. It sort of felt like the scant few good, high-concept parts of Neverwinter Nights (like the snowglobe world) with all the absolutely worthless chaff removed. The writing only really goes to pieces in the third act, and even that has a few standout areas like the House of Hope which I found pretty evocative and unnerving.

Agree that the companions are a mixed bag; La'zel and Minthara are generally very good, Gale is alright albeit with a stupid backstory, Shadowheart is fine if uninteresting, Jaheira and Minsc feel appropriately familiar. I see why some people hate Karlach but I thought she came across as refreshingly amiable and normal in a cast that's otherwise a bit over the top. I liked Astarion at first but was a bit sick of him by the end. Halsin and Wyll are very boring but I don't know if I'd accuse either of being badly written as such.

 

[dukeofwoodberry]

Sure you can chalk up the had writing to generic fantasy 101 or whatever. But is that acceptable in a game held in such high regard? That's a big reason the game is an 8/10 for me and not this masterpiece many claim. Games like deux ex, kotor 1/2, mass effect 1, fallout 1/2, planetscape the witcher and more have really good writing and companions/npcs/villains that put this game to shame. You could say bg3 has better gameplay but that's like half the score. The other have is the writing, characters and story. When it is lacking in half of what makes a great game, I don't understand all the praise.

I dunno, of the ones you mentioned I think I prefer BG3's writing to The Witcher (which I can't stand), Mass Effect 1 and KOTOR 1 (BioWare's writing bores the shit out of me), and Fallout 2 (funny when you're 12, less so 25 years later, and does a lot of damage to the Fallout setting).

BG3's writing isn't even bad, it's just Saturday morning cartoon stuff, a bunch of larger-than-life heroes out on an adventure where most things are rather black and white - so, basically, Dungeons & Dragons. The plot is a thin excuse to be shuttled through all these exotic locations, meeting bizarre characters and ending up in surreal situations. It sort of felt like the scant few good, high-concept parts of Neverwinter Nights (like the snowglobe world) with all the absolutely worthless chaff removed. The writing only really goes to pieces in the third act, and even that has a few standout areas like the House of Hope which I found pretty evocative and unnerving.

Agree that the companions are a mixed bag; La'zel and Minthara are generally very good, Gale is alright albeit with a stupid backstory, Shadowheart is fine if uninteresting, Jaheira and Minsc feel appropriately familiar. I see why some people hate Karlach but I thought she came across as refreshingly amiable and normal in a cast that's otherwise a bit over the top. I liked Astarion at first but was a bit sick of him by the end. Halsin and Wyll are very boring but I don't know if I'd accuse either of being badly written as such.

Bg3's writing is dog shit. It's banal, convoluted, uninteresting. Mass Effect 1 writing absolutely tears this game to shreds. The Witcher writing puts this to shame. It's not even comparable. I don't know how you can say some of the games that have some of the most universally praised writing are worse than this boring crap

 

[Barbarian]

What, like those early Witcher 3 reviews praising the "help the old lady find her old frying pan" quest?

The whole witcher series was very hit and miss mind you.

 

[Lemming42]

I don't know how you can say some of the games that have some of the most universally praised writing are worse than this boring crap

Ha, well, Fallout 3 won writing awards. You'll find BG3's writing receiving widespread acclaim too. Don't worry about what other people think and what's getting "universal praise".

I've always thought The Witcher and Mass Effect are terrible. BG3 works as a dumb fantasy adventure, Witcher and ME don't even work on that level. I can't put into words how shit I thought The Witcher was, and Mass Effect is just one big squandered opportunity; they did the hard work of coming up with a vaguely original sci-fi setting and then filled it with stories that Star Trek would reject as b-plots for being too dull.

 

[Barbarian]

Problem with the Witcher is the source material. Despite the "based poland" memes Geralt is certainly one of the top 10 most cuckish fantasy protagonists ever.

The entire female character lineup was cringe to the end. Yennefer and Ciri in particular. The strong empowerd wymmin sorcerer trope as a whole was so annoying I wished I could have joined the witch hunters. I will take a Shadowheart or Laezel over these bitches cucking Geralt anyday.

 

[Harthwain]

Games like deux ex, kotor 1/2, mass effect 1, fallout 1/2, planetscape the witcher and more have really good writing and companions/npcs/villains that put this game to shame.

Bg3's writing is dog shit. It's banal, convoluted, uninteresting. Mass Effect 1 writing absolutely tears this game to shreds.

And here I was, thinking people praising Mass Effect 1 were playing a different game than I did, after I was lured into playing it. Mass Effect 1 was a terrible experience for me. Partially (but not limited to) because the choices were black'n'white, with the third option was faked as something more meaningful than "an evil choice without evil points". The writing itself was barely serviceable and I never thought highly of its setting.

Fallout 2's writing was better - I didn't have issues reading through it whatsoever - although I understand it was less bearable for those who recognized all the pop culture jokes and stuff (I didn't, being a pop culture ignoramus, which helped to immunize me to the cringe elements). A lot of what made Fallout interesting was its post-apo world (mixed up with retro-futuristic theme).

KotOR 1's writing was only good as far as the companions (and only some of them, too). The rest of it being utterly banal, even for Star Wars (which is where KotOR 2 improved. A LOT).

 

[The Bishop]

I'd put BG3 a couple notches below Mass Effect and DAO, and a few more notches below Witcher. Granted the main problem is not exclusive to BG3 or Larian. This is just current year writing. There are no peoples, no traditions, no convictions. Nothing is justified by anything. The only virtue is to be a good consumer. And the only villainy is preventing others from consuming.

One group that is anything close to having an identity are Githyanki. But the only reason they do is the tyranny of Vlakith. If only they can be freed they'd join the rest in their happy homogeneous blob of consumers. This pretend medieval consumer world feels thoroughly fake.

Compare this to, say, Mass Effect. Very basic story, not much going on there. However you still have races, political factions, however basic beliefs and motivations. Individuals have differences and are driven by them. You know who Krogans are. You know who Salarians are. Just as we used to know who are Dwarves or Drow. Older games didn't necessarily have much of a plot or very complicated setups. But at least they were populated by characters that felt somewhat real in their differences and not just standard citizen #341 and standard citizen #342.

Now back to BG3. Let's take Wyll for example. This character is supposed to be relatable, yet feels like a complete cardboard cutout. His entire backstory is about him selling his soul to a devil, because one night he happened to run out of his house, and found a group that were just about to destroy Baldur's Gate. What the fuck is this? How can this city even exist if it depends on a random person in his underpants running out on the street in the middle of the night? And other than that Wyll has no defining characteristics. This is way too fake, even by Saturday night cartoon standard.

 

[ERYFKRAD]

It is still by far the most "hardcore" adaptation.

Nah buddy, Solasta whacks this game by a mile when it comes to system faithfulness and hardness of the core.

 

[Swen]

It is still by far the most "hardcore" adaptation.

Nah buddy, Solasta whacks this game by a mile when it comes to system faithfulness and hardness of the core.

Solasta sucks though

 

[Fedora Master]

It is still by far the most "hardcore" adaptation.

Nah buddy, Solasta whacks this game by a mile when it comes to system faithfulness and hardness of the core.

Solasta sucks though

It's okay, both games can be cringe and dumb.

 

[ERYFKRAD]

It is still by far the most "hardcore" adaptation.

Nah buddy, Solasta whacks this game by a mile when it comes to system faithfulness and hardness of the core.

Solasta sucks though

Still not out of Belgium