Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Categories

Dark Dreams of Furiae - a new module for NWN:EE! Buy now
Attention, new and old users! Please read the new rules of conduct for the forums, and we hope you enjoy your stay!

Baldur's Gate III released into Early Access

1114115116118120

Comments

  • mlnevesemlnevese Member, Moderator Posts: 10,159
    jtm4qhtqrvgf.png
    mrhur3pz27j1.png
    46dzm0pgwmf4.png
    75cs4t4tol4j.png

    A few more screenshots to show the graphic improvements. What you can't see is that the game no longer draws complex scenarios layer by layer, for instance.

    JuliusBorisovSkatanMirandelArvia
  • CahirCahir Member, Moderator, Translator (NDA) Posts: 2,666
    mlnevese wrote: »
    jtm4qhtqrvgf.png
    mrhur3pz27j1.png
    46dzm0pgwmf4.png
    75cs4t4tol4j.png

    A few more screenshots to show the graphic improvements. What you can't see is that the game no longer draws complex scenarios layer by layer, for instance.

    Could it be that I can finally play the game? 😮

    mlnevese
  • kanisathakanisatha Member Posts: 1,226
    scriver wrote: »
    The game already has that while in combat. A path line is drawn and it has different colouration (red for harmful effects, yellow for the ones that aren't directly harmful like blood and water, iirc). But only during TB, though.

    The whole pathfinding system for your companions are pretty hilarious as it is right now. I'm glad they added automatic jumps, but I hope they improve it further before the full release.
    The underlying issue with the pathfinding problems is how party movement in general is handled in the game. The D:OS-style chain movement system Larian uses is just awful. This issue is one of the "mega-threads" complaint issues on the Larian BG3 subforum.

    mlnevesescriver
  • JuliusBorisovJuliusBorisov Member, Administrator, Moderator, Developer Posts: 21,716
    A new interview is available:

    https://www.destructoid.com/stories/larian-founder-swen-vincke-on-dice-druids-and-baldur-s-gate-3-624779.phtml

    Snippets:

    "I know that the community wants us to go faster than we can," Vincke tells me over a video chat. "It does take time to implement things, especially for a game that's as vast as Baldur's Gate 3—also a game that we're still developing—so we have to balance the two things to each other."
    There are several areas that Vincke says the team has identified, though it's important to separate the good feedback from the bad. There are certain pillars Larian is trying to establish with Baldur's Gate 3, and some of them are going to be different from the Divinity series that Larian fans are more familiar with. Real-time with pause is one concept Vincke says Larian won't be implementing.
    Vincke says the studio is trying to be very conservative with what they launch in the Early Access period. That doesn't mean there won't be anything more, but there's also the concern of releasing too much and watching players burnout; he says there are already people who played 300 to 400 hours of Baldur's Gate 3 in Early Access.
    "You could argue that it would be a lot easier to just throw everything into Early Access, and then just work with all that feedback and then just release it at the end of the exercise," Vincke says. "And at the same time you can say well, if I do that, and I haven't dealt with everything and players happen to have a bad experience there, then that's their entire impression of the game: that it was a bad experience."
    Vincke says that Larian has ambitions, still, for what it's going to add. Druid provides a very different experience compared to the other classes, so it's an interesting question mark to address now, rather than later.
    "So we're not going to necessarily put the classes that are easiest to make first into [Early Access], we're putting the ones that are interesting for us also, to see what the community does with it," Vincke says.
    As we wrapped up our conversation, I remarked that I was eager to jump back in afterwards and maybe make a new character, to try some of the Druid abilities out for myself. Vincke's response surprised me, and ended up being my biggest takeaway: to not burn myself out on Baldur's Gate 3.
    He advised to "try and keep some surprises for yourself," because things are still changing. Baldur's Gate 3 is still changing, and there are aspects of this game that might be different in some way I could overlook, thinking I had seen them already in the Early Access. The worst that could happen is that when Baldur's Gate 3 finally launches, I'll skip through a scene or not try out a choice because I think I've already seen and know it. That's not what Larian is planning on.
    "You won't know it," Vincke says. "It will be different, and so that's the promise."

    Skatan
  • kanisathakanisatha Member Posts: 1,226
    jjstraka34 wrote: »
    Baldur's Gate 3 feels like a DM who is perfectly willing to bend the rules for the players to see what kind of wild, wacky, or even unnerving things they can uncover.
    I agree with you here. It's pretty clear BG3 is all about the game being your DM and "player agency" to use Vincke's own description.

    But the problem is that for many people, myself included, this particular DM sucks, and we would not like having our game run by this particular DM. Why? Because this DM only allows "player agency" in certain specific ways and not in a completely open way where each player can do whatever they want to do. This is obviously a limitation of coding. But if you're going to claim that a game provides player agency, then that game should allow that agency for all types of players. But this DM only allows player agency in ONE certain way, which on the Larian forum is currently being hammered under the overall title of "Larian's cheesy gimmicks." And for me, if I have to choose between a game that gives agency to just one type of player (the player who loves Larian cheese), or not much agency at all (i.e. the original BG games), I'd emphatically choose the latter.

  • JuliusBorisovJuliusBorisov Member, Administrator, Moderator, Developer Posts: 21,716
    I don't know who uses the title of "Larian's cheesy gimmicks", how often and why. I don't know what that means and I like what I see in their games. I can't say their gameplay falls under one particular category, to me the games are quite diverse and provide a lot of options.

  • kanisathakanisatha Member Posts: 1,226
    The terms Larian cheese or cheesy gimmicks is being used to talk about Larian's use of such things as push, shove, height advantages, backstab advantages, exploding barrels, elemental surfaces, and excessive availability and free usage of overpowered consumables, all things that are not part of D&D 5e.

    Sjerrie
  • JuliusBorisovJuliusBorisov Member, Administrator, Moderator, Developer Posts: 21,716
    Are you sure all of them are not part of D&D 5E?

  • kanisathakanisatha Member Posts: 1,226
    Are you sure all of them are not part of D&D 5E?
    Well, I'm not even close to being a 5e expert. I stopped caring about D&D from everything after 3.5e. But according to the "D&D camp" in the Larian forum, these are largely not representative of D&D 5e.

    Essentially the forum has split into a battle between a camp that loves those Larian systems and sees them as the epitome of player agency (being referred to as the D:OS fans camp), and those who see those Larian systems as sort of a cancer that is eroding the D&D-ness of the game (the D&D camp). And then there are people like me (and surprisingly quite a few others) who don't fit into either camp. For example, I absolutely loathe the D:OS games and their cheesiness (my perspective). But at the same time I am also a sharp critic of D&D 5e and especially that dice-rolling (RNG) is so central to every system in D&D, and agree with Vincke's statement very early on that not everything that works in a TT game works well in a videogame, so you need to change some rules and systems to make a videogame fun to play. So I kinda' find myself arguing against both the D:OS fanatics and the D&D purists and get hit from both sides. But the bottom line is that a skism has formed between these two camps of potential BG3 fans, and when the "D:OS camp" ends up "winning," as is inevitable, the "D&D camp" is surely going to go bat crap crazy.

  • JuliusBorisovJuliusBorisov Member, Administrator, Moderator, Developer Posts: 21,716
    I think the main thing would be not to fall into any of the camps and review the game (any game, really) using your own, honest and unbiased opinion. For BG3, the main aspect for me is: is this X thing working alright to be fun in the game? If someone can call it a gimmick, I don't care, really. If someone can call it true/untrue to the D&D systems, I wouldn't care as well - the main factor for me would be: does it work in this particular game and is it fun? If it's Yes and Yes, that is the only thing I need to know about the game.

  • BallpointManBallpointMan Member Posts: 1,568
    edited April 8
    One argument that I'll never fully understand relates to player agency and their dissatisfaction with even being presented an option they find unacceptable.

    Let's use the shove mechanic since it was mentioned above. 5e is modularized so there is not explicit rule dealing with the exact nature of what a "shove" might entail(if memory serves), but the pieces of the mechanic are present so that if my player said to me (as the DM) "I want to shove that enemy" - it's not hard for me to come up with rules for that on the spot.

    If you dont like the implementation of that rule, then the simplest and easiest approach is: Dont shove anyone. Yeah. You might occasionally be shoved by an enemy, but the intrusiveness of saying "I dont think any player who ever wants to shove anyone else should be allowed to do that" vs "Shoving is allowed. You can shove (or not shove) if you want " leans SHARPLY towards to the former than the latter.


    There are plenty of rules/mechanics/ideas I dislike in CRGPS (including BG). I almost never use potions because I find them to be usually OP and a dime a dozen. I would never say to Bioware/Beamdog "Please remove all potions. I dont like them".

    Dont like consumables. Dont use them. Dont want explosive barrels, never set them off. Dont like shoving/jumping/backstabs - dont do them.

    I know some people are upset at how easy it is to get advantage. I think that's a tuning thing and not some kind of special formula of Larians. It wasnt a thing in DO:S, so I dont think there's any reason to expect it to be a fundamental part of the formula.

    DinoDin
  • kanisathakanisatha Member Posts: 1,226
    One argument that I'll never fully understand relates to player agency and their dissatisfaction with even being presented an option they find unacceptable.

    Let's use the shove mechanic since it was mentioned above. 5e is modularized so there is not explicit rule dealing with the exact nature of what a "shove" might entail(if memory serves), but the pieces of the mechanic are present so that if my player said to me (as the DM) "I want to shove that enemy" - it's not hard for me to come up with rules for that on the spot.

    If you dont like the implementation of that rule, then the simplest and easiest approach is: Dont shove anyone. Yeah. You might occasionally be shoved by an enemy, but the intrusiveness of saying "I dont think any player who ever wants to shove anyone else should be allowed to do that" vs "Shoving is allowed. You can shove (or not shove) if you want " leans SHARPLY towards to the former than the latter.


    There are plenty of rules/mechanics/ideas I dislike in CRGPS (including BG). I almost never use potions because I find them to be usually OP and a dime a dozen. I would never say to Bioware/Beamdog "Please remove all potions. I dont like them".

    Dont like consumables. Dont use them. Dont want explosive barrels, never set them off. Dont like shoving/jumping/backstabs - dont do them.

    I know some people are upset at how easy it is to get advantage. I think that's a tuning thing and not some kind of special formula of Larians. It wasnt a thing in DO:S, so I dont think there's any reason to expect it to be a fundamental part of the formula.
    This is a misrepresentation of the reality of the game. Vincke himself as well as other Larian devs have said in many interviews, including that most recent one, that essentially the combat encounters in the game are being balanced and fine-tuned on the basis of expecting people using these "unconventional" tactics and strategies to win the encounter. That is the built-in expectation of the game. So when someone like me comes along and says (and I literally mean this is how I will play the game) I refuse to engage in Larian's cheese, I am immediately placing myself in a hugely disadvantageous position for beating the encounter. I still may win, but it will be at the cost of significant aggravation and frustration and stress, which are exactly the opposite of the reason I play these games in the first place. I can refuse to engage in this cheese all I want. That does nothing to keep measly goblins from bombarding me with fire arrows and grenades every single round.

  • BallpointManBallpointMan Member Posts: 1,568
    edited April 8
    kanisatha wrote: »
    One argument that I'll never fully understand relates to player agency and their dissatisfaction with even being presented an option they find unacceptable.

    Let's use the shove mechanic since it was mentioned above. 5e is modularized so there is not explicit rule dealing with the exact nature of what a "shove" might entail(if memory serves), but the pieces of the mechanic are present so that if my player said to me (as the DM) "I want to shove that enemy" - it's not hard for me to come up with rules for that on the spot.

    If you dont like the implementation of that rule, then the simplest and easiest approach is: Dont shove anyone. Yeah. You might occasionally be shoved by an enemy, but the intrusiveness of saying "I dont think any player who ever wants to shove anyone else should be allowed to do that" vs "Shoving is allowed. You can shove (or not shove) if you want " leans SHARPLY towards to the former than the latter.


    There are plenty of rules/mechanics/ideas I dislike in CRGPS (including BG). I almost never use potions because I find them to be usually OP and a dime a dozen. I would never say to Bioware/Beamdog "Please remove all potions. I dont like them".

    Dont like consumables. Dont use them. Dont want explosive barrels, never set them off. Dont like shoving/jumping/backstabs - dont do them.

    I know some people are upset at how easy it is to get advantage. I think that's a tuning thing and not some kind of special formula of Larians. It wasnt a thing in DO:S, so I dont think there's any reason to expect it to be a fundamental part of the formula.
    This is a misrepresentation of the reality of the game. Vincke himself as well as other Larian devs have said in many interviews, including that most recent one, that essentially the combat encounters in the game are being balanced and fine-tuned on the basis of expecting people using these "unconventional" tactics and strategies to win the encounter. That is the built-in expectation of the game. So when someone like me comes along and says (and I literally mean this is how I will play the game) I refuse to engage in Larian's cheese, I am immediately placing myself in a hugely disadvantageous position for beating the encounter. I still may win, but it will be at the cost of significant aggravation and frustration and stress, which are exactly the opposite of the reason I play these games in the first place. I can refuse to engage in this cheese all I want. That does nothing to keep measly goblins from bombarding me with fire arrows and grenades every single round.


    Well first - I'd love a direct quote on that. The more specific the better (references to vague "unconventional strategies" could mean literally anything). That said. Of course all of gameplay is balanced to available options. Which is why the potion argument from before is salient - they can make combat too easy, so I dont use them. In the event that they would make a more challenging fight normal (which is to be expected in a game in which I can go virtually anywhere and fight anyone at any time) - it incentivizes me to use more nuanced strategies to contend with the more powerful enemies.

    No game will ever be perfectly balanced against all of the resources the player has the option of using. In absence of that potential of perfect balance, I'd much rather have a game that allows a relative level of freedom for the character to act as op[posed to one that controls the player so specifically so that only one of a handful of "acceptable" approaches is correct. Especially since I can and do self-limit my choices based on how I want to play. Player agency and all.

    Also, although I dont suspect I need to state it at this point: I reject the idea that I've misrepresented the "reality" of the game.

    DinoDin
  • DinoDinDinoDin Member Posts: 1,326
    jjstraka34 wrote: »
    The original games were the first that got the "feel" of being able to have a true D&D experience by yourself on your computer right. Playing the Gold Box games feels like reading a sourcebook, the Infinity Engine games feel like actually playing an official 2nd Edition module. Baldur's Gate 3 feels like a DM who is perfectly willing to bend the rules for the players to see what kind of wild, wacky, or even unnerving things they can uncover. I have a feeling we will be discovering things you can trigger in this game with race, class, and skill combos for years.

    What you describe here was my experience with the OS games. It definitely felt like the first game since the Ultima 7's that wanted to cater to the player in the way a live DM would. And this seemed to grow from OS1 to 2. It's no surprise it's seemingly even more expanded in BG3.

  • scriverscriver Member Posts: 2,072
    edited April 10
    One argument that I'll never fully understand relates to player agency and their dissatisfaction with even being presented an option they find unacceptable.

    Let's use the shove mechanic since it was mentioned above. 5e is modularized so there is not explicit rule dealing with the exact nature of what a "shove" might entail(if memory serves), but the pieces of the mechanic are present so that if my player said to me (as the DM) "I want to shove that enemy" - it's not hard for me to come up with rules for that on the spot.

    If you dont like the implementation of that rule, then the simplest and easiest approach is: Dont shove anyone. Yeah. You might occasionally be shoved by an enemy, but the intrusiveness of saying "I dont think any player who ever wants to shove anyone else should be allowed to do that" vs "Shoving is allowed. You can shove (or not shove) if you want " leans SHARPLY towards to the former than the latter.


    There are plenty of rules/mechanics/ideas I dislike in CRGPS (including BG). I almost never use potions because I find them to be usually OP and a dime a dozen. I would never say to Bioware/Beamdog "Please remove all potions. I dont like them".

    Dont like consumables. Dont use them. Dont want explosive barrels, never set them off. Dont like shoving/jumping/backstabs - dont do them.

    I know some people are upset at how easy it is to get advantage. I think that's a tuning thing and not some kind of special formula of Larians. It wasnt a thing in DO:S, so I dont think there's any reason to expect it to be a fundamental part of the formula.

    A more pertinent example would be your player, wildshaped into a badger, saying "I want to use the badger's ability to tunnel through the ground to dig through the air over to that platform over there" and you letting him do that.

    It's pretty obvious of you watch him playing the game that Swen enjoys cheesing his way through games and that preference is clearly reflected in the game design. He wants every boss to be beatable by a single push, to be able to move around freely in stealth for any length of time while the enemy is frozen in time because they're in TB mode and you're not, and so on, because that is the kind of thing he thinks is clever.

    By the way, the part about shoves that people usually complain about isn't that you can shove people. It's that shoving requires only a bonus action while in 5e it uses up an attack action (and requires beating the enemy in an opposed STR check). Then there's also the separate issue that nearly every single important fight is shaped to let you finish the boss with a single "Thunderwave-them-into-the-abyss" move. Because that is a recurring gimmick of BG3's design.

    Oh, and that "just don't use them" argument is so trite and overstated. Yes, I can not use them. That doesn't change the fact that the game is designed with using these features in mind. Enemies will still use some of them against you, too, and that has a huge impact on how you have to play the game. I can choose not to play the game too, but I want to play this game -- I want them to change these things because I want the game to be better so that I'll enjoy playing the game more.

    kanisathaSjerrie
  • BallpointManBallpointMan Member Posts: 1,568
    edited April 11
    scriver wrote: »
    Oh, and that "just don't use them" argument is so trite and overstated. Yes, I can not use them. That doesn't change the fact that the game is designed with using these features in mind. Enemies will still use some of them against you, too, and that has a huge impact on how you have to play the game. I can choose not to play the game too, but I want to play this game -- I want them to change these things because I want the game to be better so that I'll enjoy playing the game more.

    I'll address only this issue because the rest of what you've posted is something that tuning a game in Early Access can fix (which has fixed plenty of other things you've complained about in the past - perhaps not at the speed you want, but that's a "you" issue and not a development issue for a game that hasnt been finished yet).

    You've complained about cheese - which by its very definition is a way to use mechanics in an unintended way to beat an otherwise more challenging encounter - and then attempted to argue that it is the "expected" way to play. Cheese of course, by definition, is not how you're expected to play.

    I can cheese most challenging fights in BG1 and 2 by entering and leaving rooms/screens during spell casts, as it wastes the cast of the enemy. I can leave the room and wait for their buffs to expire one by one, and then re-enter. That's cheese - it's not an intended way to play the game. I also dont complain on forums that I have this ability - either I abuse it and accept that's how I play the game, or dont use it and the game is played as intended.

    If you dont like one hit boss fights because you've found a cheesy strat, it's entirely on you not to use your cheese strat to trivialize the boss fight. Unless I am mistaken, there are no "shove or be shoved" one hit kill for you or the boss encounters in the game... so you're never obligated to do the thing you're complaining about.

    Your complaints appear to be the equivalent of have the option to cheat, and being upset because you cannot stop yourself from doing so. That's entirely your responsibility and not someone else's.

    CahirJuliusBorisov
  • jjstraka34jjstraka34 Member Posts: 9,669
    edited April 11
    I mean, a couple things. To address the point above, there are hardly any games in existence more susceptible to "cheese" mechanics than the Baldur's Gate Saga. Even if you are playing SCS on the hardest difficulty, I'm pretty sure you can just use your spellcasters, sequencers and simulacrums to set dozens of skull traps to trivialize the final battel in Throne of Bhaal if they are placed in the right spot.

    As for shoving, the absolute most fun I had in the early access of BG3 in combat was noticing the very obvious fact that a bandit was standing with his back to a ledge, then realizing I had a shove action button, and pushing him to his death. This is honestly quite similar to people using a Dragon Shout in Skyrim to fling someone off a mountain. Which, let's face it, everyone loves. You'd think adding this kind of agency and dynamic to combat would excite people who grew up with the options the Infinity Engine provided, but since it's Larian, now I guess we're supposed to want less?? Why??

    The best thing about the D:OS games and this is how they say "yes, you can do that" to the player. If you can think something up based on your options and what is one screen, you can do it. It may trivialize the encounter. And the game isn't remotely interested in punishing you for wanting to take advantage of it, or telling you that you aren't allowed.

    DinoDinJuliusBorisov
  • scriverscriver Member Posts: 2,072
    scriver wrote: »
    Oh, and that "just don't use them" argument is so trite and overstated. Yes, I can not use them. That doesn't change the fact that the game is designed with using these features in mind. Enemies will still use some of them against you, too, and that has a huge impact on how you have to play the game. I can choose not to play the game too, but I want to play this game -- I want them to change these things because I want the game to be better so that I'll enjoy playing the game more.

    I'll address only this issue because the rest of what you've posted is something that tuning a game in Early Access can fix (which has fixed plenty of other things you've complained about in the past - perhaps not at the speed you want, but that's a "you" issue and not a development issue for a game that hasnt been finished yet).

    You've complained about cheese - which by its very definition is a way to use mechanics in an unintended way to beat an otherwise more challenging encounter - and then attempted to argue that it is the "expected" way to play. Cheese of course, by definition, is not how you're expected to play.

    I can cheese most challenging fights in BG1 and 2 by entering and leaving rooms/screens during spell casts, as it wastes the cast of the enemy. I can leave the room and wait for their buffs to expire one by one, and then re-enter. That's cheese - it's not an intended way to play the game. I also dont complain on forums that I have this ability - either I abuse it and accept that's how I play the game, or dont use it and the game is played as intended.

    If you dont like one hit boss fights because you've found a cheesy strat, it's entirely on you not to use your cheese strat to trivialize the boss fight. Unless I am mistaken, there are no "shove or be shoved" one hit kill for you or the boss encounters in the game... so you're never obligated to do the thing you're complaining about.

    Your complaints appear to be the equivalent of have the option to cheat, and being upset because you cannot stop yourself from doing so. That's entirely your responsibility and not someone else's.

    "There were cheesy strategies in BG1 and 2" isn't even relevant. We're not talking about them, and even if we were, two wrongs don't make a right.

    I already said my piece on the "just don't use them" argument -- and you adding a paragraph to it to call me "weak" doesn't adress anything I said. It's still trite and overstated and me not using them still doesn't change that the game is designed around using them and that enemies will use if against you and that choosing not to use them will put you at great strategical disadvantage.
    jjstraka34 wrote: »
    I mean, a couple things. To address the point above, there are hardly any games in existence more susceptible to "cheese" mechanics than the Baldur's Gate Saga. Even if you are playing SCS on the hardest difficulty, I'm pretty sure you can just use your spellcasters, sequencers and simulacrums to set dozens of skull traps to trivialize the final battel in Throne of Bhaal if they are placed in the right spot.

    As for shoving, the absolute most fun I had in the early access of BG3 in combat was noticing the very obvious fact that a bandit was standing with his back to a ledge, then realizing I had a shove action button, and pushing him to his death. This is honestly quite similar to people using a Dragon Shout in Skyrim to fling someone off a mountain. Which, let's face it, everyone loves. You'd think adding this kind of agency and dynamic to combat would excite people who grew up with the options the Infinity Engine provided, but since it's Larian, now I guess we're supposed to want less?? Why??

    The best thing about the D:OS games and this is how they say "yes, you can do that" to the player. If you can think something up based on your options and what is one screen, you can do it. It may trivialize the encounter. And the game isn't remotely interested in punishing you for wanting to take advantage of it, or telling you that you aren't allowed.

    Nobody is saying "remove shove", mate.

    kanisathaSjerrie
  • mlnevesemlnevese Member, Moderator Posts: 10,159
    edited April 11
    My pet peeve with Larian games are the elemental surfaces. I don't like them on Divinity games and certainly don't like them on a D&D game. Once the floor is on fire it stays on fire forever. Should I give up memorizing useful spells just to have surface countering spells memorized?

    On 5th edition you have few ways to set something on fire that often require simple checks to end. For instance:
    Alchemist's Fire
    This sticky, adhesive fluid ignites when exposed to air. As an action, you can throw this flask up to 20 feet, shattering it on impact. Make a ranged Attack against a creature or object, treating the alchemist's fire as an Improvised Weapon. On a hit, the target takes 1d4 fire damage at the start of each of its turns. A creature can end this damage by using its action to make a DC 10 Dexterity check to extinguish the flames.

    DC 10 dex check. You are on fire, not everything around you, including stone floor. You can end it on the following round by a simple dex 10 check, not a create water spell.

    I don't mind things like push or jump that have existed in one way or another since First Edition, but elemental surfaces feel completely out of place. So I'm hit by a flaming arrow and the effect is the same as if I'm standing in lava?

    I have tried playing Original Sin 1 & 2 several times but elemental surfaces end up irritating me so much I quit the game.

  • kanisathakanisatha Member Posts: 1,226
    edited April 11
    scriver wrote: »
    I already said my piece on the "just don't use them" argument -- and you adding a paragraph to it to call me "weak" doesn't adress anything I said. It's still trite and overstated and me not using them still doesn't change that the game is designed around using them and that enemies will use if against you and that choosing not to use them will put you at great strategical disadvantage.
    Yup, completely ignoring the points you and I are making to set up a straw man. "Cheese" in BG3 is setting up alternate systems in the game that contradict or nullify the core systems of the game, namely D&D 5e. They are NOT "cheats." They are what the game expects you to use and often even demands that you use. So saying "it's up to you to not use them" is ridiculous and silly. This is why those of us who are unhappy about these systems didn't oppose the D:OS games having these systems. We simply said "no thanks" to those games themselves. But BG3 is supposed to be a D&D 5e game. It is reasonable for someone to expect that the game will then follow D&D 5e systems and not some *cheesy* systems imported in from some other completely unrelated games.

    scriver
  • BallpointManBallpointMan Member Posts: 1,568
    edited April 11
    scriver wrote: »
    I already said my piece on the "just don't use them" argument -- and you adding a paragraph to it to call me "weak" doesn't adress anything I said. It's still trite and overstated and me not using them still doesn't change that the game is designed around using them and that enemies will use if against you and that choosing not to use them will put you at great strategical disadvantage.

    Where did I call you weak? I think perhaps the beginning of this argument should start with us not inventing false grievances to justify our points.

    You said "It's trite and overstated" without making any actual logical argument about how it's trite or offering a valid counterpoint to show it is overstated. If anything is overstated it is just how "great" the strategical disadvantage you suffer from not 1-shotting all bosses through cheese is. That was a pillar of your complaint. In case you forgot, I'll even quote that section for you:
    scriver wrote: »
    By the way, the part about shoves that people usually complain about isn't that you can shove people. It's that shoving requires only a bonus action while in 5e it uses up an attack action (and requires beating the enemy in an opposed STR check). Then there's also the separate issue that nearly every single important fight is shaped to let you finish the boss with a single "Thunderwave-them-into-the-abyss" move. Because that is a recurring gimmick of BG3's design.

    (Please note how the first half of the statement was addressed in my first paragraph. It's a mechanical complaint in a game in which the mechanics are constantly being corrected all the time. I'll worry about this when the final product is present).



    To answer another one of your points in your second post: The cheese in BG1 and 2 is relevant in that it reflects upon my greater point that people in general (all of us) can choose to engage in cheese or not engage in cheese. The fact that the cheese is there doesnt necessarily diminish the game. It was a point offering context to my original statement which began with "One argument that I'll never fully understand relates to player agency and their dissatisfaction with even being presented an option they find unacceptable."

    So not only was it salient, but it referred back to the general thesis of my first post - the once you quoted in your response. As a somewhat aside, to buttress up my earlier point that I didnt call you "weak" - I've cheesed plenty of encounters in BG1 and 2 when using SCS. Sometimes I'm just not able to beat the lich in the dockyards when I decide I'm ready to try him. I dont think it makes me "weak" - but I importantly recognize that I'm operating outside of the way the game is expected to be played.
    kanisatha wrote: »
    scriver wrote: »
    I already said my piece on the "just don't use them" argument -- and you adding a paragraph to it to call me "weak" doesn't adress anything I said. It's still trite and overstated and me not using them still doesn't change that the game is designed around using them and that enemies will use if against you and that choosing not to use them will put you at great strategical disadvantage.
    Yup, completely ignoring the points you and I are making to set up a straw man. "Cheese" in BG3 is setting up alternate systems in the game that contradict or nullify the core systems of the game, namely D&D 5e. They are NOT "cheats." They are what the game expects you to use and often even demands that you use. So saying "it's up to you to not use them" is ridiculous and silly. This is why those of us who are unhappy about these systems didn't oppose the D:OS games having these systems. We simply said "no thanks" to those games themselves. But BG3 is supposed to be a D&D 5e game. It is reasonable for someone to expect that the game will then follow D&D 5e systems and not some *cheesy* systems imported in from some other completely unrelated games.


    It actually wasnt a strawman. I also specifically asked you for some sourcing to some of your claims which you incidentally refused to provide. I'd also love an example of a situation in which you are "demanded" to cheese the game to succeed, and how detrimental that is to the overall gameplay(In addition to the Sven quotes you've referenced earlier)? Mind you, I keep using the term "cheese" here because you insisted upon it as "Larian cheese" in the framing of your argument.

    It seems to me that you're making nebulous claims and have (so far) refused to provide any evidence to support them.

  • DinoDinDinoDin Member Posts: 1,326
    jjstraka34 wrote: »
    I mean, a couple things. To address the point above, there are hardly any games in existence more susceptible to "cheese" mechanics than the Baldur's Gate Saga. Even if you are playing SCS on the hardest difficulty, I'm pretty sure you can just use your spellcasters, sequencers and simulacrums to set dozens of skull traps to trivialize the final battel in Throne of Bhaal if they are placed in the right spot.

    Solid point here, worth emphasizing. Seems to me all the newest generation CRPG's are less cheese-able than the IE games were. Including the OS games.

  • DinoDinDinoDin Member Posts: 1,326
    edited April 11
    I mean, honestly, BG almost demands that you cheese a bit, especially the beginning of BG1. I've said it before but kiting is almost needed during the levels 1-3 part of BG1. So many monsters pull off your melee chars in that spot and I feel like almost every player is encouraged to kite along with the monsters. And it definitely feels like a cheesy way to combat, much more so than selecting a shove option, imo.

    Having invested tons of hours in OS1, it absolutely has combats that are hard and don't feel like I can necessarily easily trivialize everything. Pre-buffing is quite limited actually, summons are overpowered but still limited, some key combats don't really have any alternative. I'll certainly concede that the OS games perhaps welcome "cheese" slightly more than Kingmaker or Pillars, games that put a lot more restrictions on the player. But it still plays quite fair to me, more so than IE.

  • AmmarAmmar Member Posts: 1,178
    edited April 12
    DinoDin wrote: »
    I mean, honestly, BG almost demands that you cheese a bit, especially the beginning of BG1. I've said it before but kiting is almost needed during the levels 1-3 part of BG1. So many monsters pull off your melee chars in that spot and I feel like almost every player is encouraged to kite along with the monsters. And it definitely feels like a cheesy way to combat, much more so than selecting a shove option, imo.

    Having invested tons of hours in OS1, it absolutely has combats that are hard and don't feel like I can necessarily easily trivialize everything. Pre-buffing is quite limited actually, summons are overpowered but still limited, some key combats don't really have any alternative. I'll certainly concede that the OS games perhaps welcome "cheese" slightly more than Kingmaker or Pillars, games that put a lot more restrictions on the player. But it still plays quite fair to me, more so than IE.

    I think early BG 1 encounters can all be handled as follow by a full party:

    1. Low AC character with a few healing potion tanks, while rest of the party goes ranged damage. This is sufficient for gibberlings packs, etc.
    2. Sleep + ranged weapons. This is best for dangerous groups of monsters, e.g. who try to use ranged weapon themselves.
    3. Blindness + ranged weapons. This is for dangerous individuals, e.g. Greywolf.

    Kiting works too, but it's not required in any sense of the word.

    Edit:
    I am not a of the elemental surfaces shtick of Larian either. Not necessarily because it is cheesy, but because I think the everything is on fire thing gets old fast, and also I think it leads to encounters that feel constructed instead of natural. Why do so many enemies keep exploding barrels next to them?

    Sjerrie
  • scriverscriver Member Posts: 2,072
    scriver wrote: »
    I already said my piece on the "just don't use them" argument -- and you adding a paragraph to it to call me "weak" doesn't adress anything I said. It's still trite and overstated and me not using them still doesn't change that the game is designed around using them and that enemies will use if against you and that choosing not to use them will put you at great strategical disadvantage.

    Where did I call you weak? I think perhaps the beginning of this argument should start with us not inventing false grievances to justify our points.

    Don't pretend to be dumber than you are. Stop with these constant bad faith arguments.
    You said "It's trite and overstated" without making any actual logical argument about how it's trite or offering a valid counterpoint to show it is overstated. If anything is overstated it is just how "great" the strategical disadvantage you suffer from not 1-shotting all bosses through cheese is. That was a pillar of your complaint. In case you forgot, I'll even quote that section for you:
    scriver wrote: »
    By the way, the part about shoves that people usually complain about isn't that you can shove people. It's that shoving requires only a bonus action while in 5e it uses up an attack action (and requires beating the enemy in an opposed STR check). Then there's also the separate issue that nearly every single important fight is shaped to let you finish the boss with a single "Thunderwave-them-into-the-abyss" move. Because that is a recurring gimmick of BG3's design.

    I'm not sure any amount of logic arguments would have made any difference to you because you constantly choose to ignore what you don't want to see.

    And since you're so hung up on the shoving -- no, that is not a pillar of my argument. The section which you so gracefully quoted is me explaining to you what the complaints about shove is about, since you seemed to be under the impression that people wanted the shove mechanic gone. Which is either plain misinformed or another strawman from your part.
    (Please note how the first half of the statement was addressed in my first paragraph. It's a mechanical complaint in a game in which the mechanics are constantly being corrected all the time. I'll worry about this when the final product is present).

    Well that's just plain wrongheaded of you because this, the EA period, is the correct time to "worry" about it. It's better to worry about the structural integrity of a house while it's being built than after you've moved in. It's literally the point of going EA.
    To answer another one of your points in your second post: The cheese in BG1 and 2 is relevant in that it reflects upon my greater point that people in general (all of us) can choose to engage in cheese or not engage in cheese. The fact that the cheese is there doesnt necessarily diminish the game. It was a point offering context to my original statement which began with "One argument that I'll never fully understand relates to player agency and their dissatisfaction with even being presented an option they find unacceptable."

    Ah, so it was just more "if you don't like it don't use it" nonsense then.

    kanisatha
Sign In or Register to comment.