Baldur's Gate Why do YOU hate Baldur's Gate 3?

[Shaki]

I hate it because Rusty likes it

 

[BlizzardStockholmSyndrome]

Because my level 1 fighter starts in an ilithid ship chased by dragon riders, crashes the ship and survives. That's not Baldur's Gate.

Baldur's Gate is getting into a fight with my lvl 1 fighter and 2 xvarts and having my shit pushed in. My problem is pacing, when I think Baldur's Gate I imagine a slow start and getting into a frenzy by the end game in a race for my soul.

If you're throwing dragons and mind flayers at level 1 just to keep me interested then I'm going to be bored in the next 30 minutes if suddenly I have to kill rats and act like a courier.

I never played BG3 but it seems to me that the intro sequence is much akin to you encountering Sarevok and his entourage early in BG1, or being imprisoned by Irenicus in BG2. You start off hopelessly outmatched and are subject to the whim of beings that are completely out of your league. There's dragons, mind flayers and demons duking it out and you and a bunch of others are like confused bugs trying to scurry to safety among all the madness. And the only reason you survive is that you're beneath their notice or someone intervened and bought you time to escape. But in all three games you start out as a pushover and claw your way up to the point where you can stand up to whatever abused you in the beginning.

In general I think you misremember BG1. That game starts with you and Gorion being ambushed by Sarevok accompanied by a bunch of powerful guys and some ogres. They engage in a fight where you are completely unable to contribute and Gorion sacrifices himself so that you can run away. And yeah, after that it's you and the xvarts, but from what I've seen from BG3 gameplay, out there it's you and low level bandits and wolves. And xvarts are also a huge "downgrade" from ogres and snazzy spellcaster combat you see right before Gorion dies. I don't think there's a significant qualitative difference here: can't see how Sarevok's bunch is okay but mind flayers instill crack cocaine-like brain numbness where you need more mind flayers, dragons and other epic creatures or you just lose interest.

EDIT: I think what you said makes sense in the context of fe. Fallout 4, where within the first 30 minutes of the game you get into a suit of power armor, pick up a minigun and gun down a huge deathclaw. Design-wise that was a huge WTF and I can't see any reason why they've done that there apart from generating a cool setpiece for E3 or something. But I really don't think BG3 has a similar problem. You don't get an awesome button to press there that would down a dragon, you stick to the sidelines and generally know you'd get butchered in a few seconds if you tried anything stupid.

I'll reframe my criticism by saying that BG3 intro fails at something called Mise en Scene. In BG 1 you start with Sarevok killing your mentor and you fleeing for your life, that is true, but let's break the scene down: you start in a monastery, which is a fairly normal setting. You run away into the woods which, again, is a fairly normal setting. Sarevok, a big warrior in a scary armor ambushes you with a pack of mercenaries. He obviously has beef with your mentor and it even looks like Gorion can pull himself out of it (he was using improved alacrity after all) until he gets cut down by Sarevok.

You flee into the woods and you start the adventure where you go into the woods, then an inn and keep visiting fantasy locations. You have your call to adventure, you build your party, you become a hero. Sure, there are some weird encounters but it's high fantasy in a high fantasy setting.

BG2 understood that by level 9 you are already a head above the average adventurer so your enemy is an incredibly powerful wizard. You are back to square 1. In Irenicus' dungeon you find: soul experimentation, planar theories and metaphysics, cambions, djinni and other demons. How does the game follow up? You have quests about planar adventurers, a dragon making a wage against you, a beholder lair fronting as a cult with the remnants of a dead god inside. BG1 might as well have been a picnic at this point. Again, Mise en Scene: this is no longer your standard high fantasy scenario, you are playing in the major leagues now, going toe to toe against demons, dragons and other nasties.

BG3 suffers from wanting to have the deepest plot, the larger than life story and blows its load at the begining. How can I get back to killing wolves and xvarts if I know that the throne of god is empty and there's a race for the scraps (I have no fucking idea what the plot of BG3 is, I just saw the gameplay and noped out).

Finally, why Illithid? By Throne of Bhaal it felt repetitive that there's always going to be either a Drow or an Illithid as your main opponent. Why bring them back? Shit, negro, why could't Larian adapt The Savage Tide?

 

[Stella Brando]

8. I hate belgians - 4 Votes

Other: Four person party.

Sounds like the perfect posse for lynching Phlegms.

 

[Stella Brando]

Because it's 2020 and the last great game was released in 1998.

Zelda? or Spyro the Dragon?

 

[Gangrelrumbler]

My mine gripe with this game is the plot. It just completely loses steam after the end of second act. You start with an interesting conspiracy of followers of Dead Three and things slowly escalate until you get to confront Ketheric. Of all BG3 villains his the closest to Sarvevok and Irenicus. Then after he's dead you get to Baldur's Gate and everything goes downhill. Other chosen are losers, Orpheus/Emperor drama is tiresome and Netherbrain is just an uncharismatic, forgettable blob. After I've halfway through Baldur's Gate I was forcing myself to finish the game and even all the creative combat encounters devs put there didn't help.

 

[Stella Brando]

This sounds like the kind of game where you just watch the ending on youtube.

 

[KeighnMcDeath]

Wait for the movie?

 

[kigmathelm]

It reeks of 'game for modern audience'.

 

[Gandalf]

I hate the game, because I have not tried it. I'd probably would like a couple of things about it, but the degeneracy I saw in the pre-release materials were very off putting, so the idea of playing it was completely aborted.

 

[Snufkin]

I hate it because it wont run on my ancient computer.

 

[itsme]

I do not hate it but I do not like it either. For multiple reasons. I played through it once. I never liked DOS games and this feels like more of the same.
In short:
- too much pathos
- doesnt feel like an adventure but a slog on a couple of maps
- no real choices to be made
- same old obnoxious inventory and UI
- no custom companions only the pregendered faggotry
- etc etc etc

 

[Sotomonte]

I haven't finished it yet (the last chapter is being a bit of a struggle) but I can say that BG3 is leaving me quite indifferent.

While I like the mechanics (the combats are pretty good, there are many possibilities to play with the environment and spells to overcome obstacles or advance, there are constant dice rolls and checks as if it were a TTRPG, etc.) the world building is pure shit... most likely due to what D&D is, or has become, but also because of things put in by Larian.

I would say that two thirds of it is the fault of the D&D/Forgotten Realms setting itself and one third of it is Larian's fault, things like 90% of the Flaming Fist soldiers being women, 90% of the characters with some kind of leadership being women, etc... it's like playing a fucking Critical Role simulator.

 

[jackofshadows]

- no custom companions only the pregendered faggotry

What