Personally, I'd much rather would have origins stories style like in DA:O. At least then it would involve the PC's racial or class background.
Also, it seems the dialogues can't be skipped. And all lines are fully voiced no less. So people with chronic restartitis will also suffer massive ear bleedings.
I stopped watching because I am at work - but it looks great. Graphics looks great. Combat looks good. There are some overly high fantasy concepts that I don’t love, but the all the little details are there to make me want to play it.
That said - there is exactly a zero percent chance I’ll play it in EA until all races and Classes are added. It sounds like they’re all going to be there, but not necessarily while the game is in EA.
The central plot mechanism is a little over the top, but then, it’s not really any more so than being the bhaalspawn
I'm glad to see the warlock made it in for the early access. If any of the classes were going to get not brought in initially I would have guessed it would be it. But I guess mechanically it's a pretty straightforward class to implement if you've already got a long/short rest system in place.
So traps trigger in real time, but can optionally be entered in a turn-based mode? And they still go with "TB combat is the holy grail" approach? Bah!
Transitioning traps that run on a loop is different than creating two different combat systems from the ground up. I'm not sure Larian has ever argued it's the holy grail either, just that it's a better fit for the kind of game they want to make. It certainly looked good in the demo, imo.
I also don't get people who like CRPG's but can't stand turn based combat? You're really limiting yourself to a pretty small number of titles if that's your preference, and frankly, shortchanging your gaming experience.
I'm utterly disappointed. There is no BG feel at all. There are glimpses of DAO (especially in dungeons), and a hell of a lot more of DOS2, but there is a lack of magical Faerun feel. Yeah, I was not expecting a lot, but I was not expecting this... eh, going back to wait for IWD-in-EET...
I kinda liked it, even though it's not I'd wish for. Not a "BG3". At least they seem to be doing 5E right. From what I see, it will probably be a great game and I'll enjoy it for a while, then leave it and go back to BG1/2, because that's what I like best.
So traps trigger in real time, but can optionally be entered in a turn-based mode? And they still go with "TB combat is the holy grail" approach? Bah!
Transitioning traps that run on a loop is different than creating two different combat systems from the ground up. I'm not sure Larian has ever argued it's the holy grail either, just that it's a better fit for the kind of game they want to make. It certainly looked good in the demo, imo.
I also don't get people who like CRPG's but can't stand turn based combat? You're really limiting yourself to a pretty small number of titles if that's your preference, and frankly, shortchanging your gaming experience.
You do you and I do me. I find no joy in how the majority of western RPG's does turn-based combat. It's not the thing I am looking for to entertain myself in my free time. Plain and simple. After watching Larian's gameplay reveal, I can state with a clean conscience that I do not plan to play the shown game. Just as like I do not plan playing any of their previously D:OS games.
So traps trigger in real time, but can optionally be entered in a turn-based mode? And they still go with "TB combat is the holy grail" approach? Bah!
Transitioning traps that run on a loop is different than creating two different combat systems from the ground up. I'm not sure Larian has ever argued it's the holy grail either, just that it's a better fit for the kind of game they want to make. It certainly looked good in the demo, imo.
I also don't get people who like CRPG's but can't stand turn based combat? You're really limiting yourself to a pretty small number of titles if that's your preference, and frankly, shortchanging your gaming experience.
You do you and I do me. I find no joy in how the majority of western RPG's does turn-based combat. It's not the thing I am looking for to entertain myself in my free time. Plain and simple. After watching Larian's gameplay reveal, I can state with a clean conscience that I do not plan to play the shown game. Just as like I do not plan playing any of their previously D:OS games.
I'm not interested in making you do anything, I merely wanted to share a point of view that I enjoy. CRPG's have overwhelmingly been turn based combat. There were tons of great titles, highly praised for their tactical combat at the time, like the old Gold Box classics.
There are, what? maybe around 10 or so total titles that are CRPG's with RTwP. And the consumer demand is clearly tilting towards turn-based, with PoE and Pathfinder switching back. So, again, you're really cutting out a ton of classics in the genre by completing eschewing these games. Seriously, the original Fallout? Pool of Radiance? The OS games, Wasteland 2? These are title that are worth your time if you enjoy the IE games!
I mean, D&D itself is a turn-based system. And at Baldur's Gate's original release, many hardcore D&D or old CRPG fans lambasted the realtime as being targeted at casual gamers, or of dumbing down the combat. It's certainly humorously ironic to me, to see the same narrow view expressed in the opposite direction today.
So traps trigger in real time, but can optionally be entered in a turn-based mode? And they still go with "TB combat is the holy grail" approach? Bah!
Transitioning traps that run on a loop is different than creating two different combat systems from the ground up. I'm not sure Larian has ever argued it's the holy grail either, just that it's a better fit for the kind of game they want to make. It certainly looked good in the demo, imo.
I also don't get people who like CRPG's but can't stand turn based combat? You're really limiting yourself to a pretty small number of titles if that's your preference, and frankly, shortchanging your gaming experience.
You do you and I do me. I find no joy in how the majority of western RPG's does turn-based combat. It's not the thing I am looking for to entertain myself in my free time. Plain and simple. After watching Larian's gameplay reveal, I can state with a clean conscience that I do not plan to play the shown game. Just as like I do not plan playing any of their previously D:OS games.
I'm not interested in making you do anything, I merely wanted to share a point of view that I enjoy. CRPG's have overwhelmingly been turn based combat. There were tons of great titles, highly praised for their tactical combat at the time, like the old Gold Box classics.
There are, what? maybe around 10 or so total titles that are CRPG's with RTwP. And the consumer demand is clearly tilting towards turn-based, with PoE and Pathfinder switching back. So, again, you're really cutting out a ton of classics in the genre by completing eschewing these games. Seriously, the original Fallout? Pool of Radiance? The OS games, Wasteland 2? These are title that are worth your time if you enjoy the IE games!
I mean, D&D itself is a turn-based system. And at Baldur's Gate's original release, many hardcore D&D or old CRPG fans lambasted the realtime as being targeted at casual gamers, or of dumbing down the combat. It's certainly humorously ironic to me, to see the same narrow view expressed in the opposite direction today.
If they only care about "consumer demand", call this game DOS3 and be done with it. Do NOT use the beloved BG franchise just to cash in or promote your company.
The fact other games are turn based or that's the way the tide has gone in gaming makes absolutely no difference at all. The combat system is a staple part of the BG series, and a sequel needed to emulate it in order to even remotely feel like a Baldur's Gate game. It could be the only game series on planet Earth with rtwp, and I'd still say keep it that way. In fact, I'd be even more inclined to say that because at least it would be a different experience as opposed to just being a DOS clone!
In the first place, I do not limit myself to CRPG's. Real time action RPG's, Hack&Slash, JRPG's, Point and Click Adventure games, Sci-Fi exploration games, Horror games and Open World Survival games are all close to my gamer heart. Meaning I have a lot of variety to choose from.
I agree with you that CRPG's using RTwP are very, very few in number. Especially compared to those using TB - hence why I hold the small amount which does use RTwP precious. On top of my head the only western TB cRPG franchise I earnestly approved of was Drakensang. But that's more because The Dark Eye is less combat focused than its Northern American PnP counterpart.
Honestly, I couldn't care less about D&D as a TableTop ruleset: especially after the dozens and dozens of retconnings it went through. My interest in WotC's IP as a whole hit practically rock bottom level. So no, I certainly don't see myself as a hardcore D&D fan.
If this were any other game but Baldurs Gate, I would call it a passable DOS clone. As it stands, I hate it.
The dialogue was terrible, it looks like Dragon Age (and I do NOT mean that as a compliment), and nothing about it feels like Baldurs Gate. Not the character creation, not the combat, not the dialogue, not the level design.
And are we really going for another "save the world" narrative? My God, man. It has been done to death and beyond. The mission in Baldurs Gate was always about discovering who you were and coming to terms with it. It was a journey of the self. We do not need another world saviour. If Bhaal resurrected, the realms would have yawned. It was always about you.
Gosh.. one of the reasons I don’t really come to these forums much these days is due to the large amount of negativity I see here. Don’t get me wrong. You are all entitled to your opinions. But I spend more time now speaking on places I know that have some positivity. It’s a shame as I miss the days when these forums were a really nice place to chat to people. It just feels very bitter now. Either way I’m really excited for Baldur’s Gate 3 and can’t wait.
@Kamigoroshi I feel like the people who invested the most amount of hours into the BG series were never "huge" DnD fans. That's why it was so easy to get into BG; because you didn't need to be a DnD geek to understand what was going on. Even though it was over a DnD template, the combat system was constructed in a way that was straightforward and less focused on every roll of the dice. It flowed, and it allowed you to control the pace. If you wanted to metagame and speed through enemies, you could do that. If you were a beginner, you could play slowly and familiarize yourself while slowly but surely picking up the pace throughout the game as your skills increased.
Turn-based combat controls the pace for you. Every single battle is now relevant. This is NOT a good thing. AT ALL. This is because the world of BG is so vast that there are lots of inconsequential creatures lurking around the wilderness. The majority of your time in BG/BG2 was spent actually *avoiding* enemies because you only had a few potions and spells available to you and you didn't want to waste health fighting unnecessarily. Think about how many times in Pokemon you bump into creatures you have no interest in fighting and have to run from every battle. That's what this is like. That is extremely tedious and will get boring very quickly. It is not what BG fans are familiar with (nor ever wanted).
@byrne20 It's hard to be positive when one of your favorite franchises has been turned into something it isn't. Imagine the uproar if Overwatch got turned into an RTS. People would have every right to be upset, and why would you expect positivity out of that?
So traps trigger in real time, but can optionally be entered in a turn-based mode? And they still go with "TB combat is the holy grail" approach? Bah!
Transitioning traps that run on a loop is different than creating two different combat systems from the ground up. I'm not sure Larian has ever argued it's the holy grail either, just that it's a better fit for the kind of game they want to make. It certainly looked good in the demo, imo.
I also don't get people who like CRPG's but can't stand turn based combat? You're really limiting yourself to a pretty small number of titles if that's your preference, and frankly, shortchanging your gaming experience.
You do you and I do me. I find no joy in how the majority of western RPG's does turn-based combat. It's not the thing I am looking for to entertain myself in my free time. Plain and simple. After watching Larian's gameplay reveal, I can state with a clean conscience that I do not plan to play the shown game. Just as like I do not plan playing any of their previously D:OS games.
I'm not interested in making you do anything, I merely wanted to share a point of view that I enjoy. CRPG's have overwhelmingly been turn based combat. There were tons of great titles, highly praised for their tactical combat at the time, like the old Gold Box classics.
There are, what? maybe around 10 or so total titles that are CRPG's with RTwP. And the consumer demand is clearly tilting towards turn-based, with PoE and Pathfinder switching back. So, again, you're really cutting out a ton of classics in the genre by completing eschewing these games. Seriously, the original Fallout? Pool of Radiance? The OS games, Wasteland 2? These are title that are worth your time if you enjoy the IE games!
I mean, D&D itself is a turn-based system. And at Baldur's Gate's original release, many hardcore D&D or old CRPG fans lambasted the realtime as being targeted at casual gamers, or of dumbing down the combat. It's certainly humorously ironic to me, to see the same narrow view expressed in the opposite direction today.
If they only care about "consumer demand", call this game DoS3 and be done with it. Do NOT use the beloved BG franchise just to cash in or promote your company.
The fact other games are turn based or that's the way the tide has gone in gaming makes absolutely no difference at all. The combat system is a staple part of the BG series, and a sequel needed to emulate it in order to even remotely feel like a Baldur's Gate game. It could be the only game series on planet Earth with rtwp, and I'd still say keep it that way. In fact, I'd be even more inclined to say that because at least it would be a different experience as opposed to just being a DoS clone!
Well, the gameplay itself shows that it's not an OS clone, at least imo. Again, I'm just baffled by this need for the combat system to be a certain way. Again, this is echoing comments made in the late 90's that BG wasn't "true D&D" because it wasn't turn-based. While I personally prefer RTwP, in part because i played a ton of RTS games, I think turnbased CRPG's, and especially D&D franchise ones, can be excellent. They have been in the past!
And I don't get this undercurrent of ownership some fans feel towards the series. You bought the products, you love the games. But honestly, there's not "fan consensus" about how the BG series should evolve from here, so I think assuming that going turn-based is some kind of betrayal of the soul of the series or its fanbase, it's just not something that I think has evidence behind it. It's just your personal taste.
But even it were true, you're not the one pouring real labor or capital into this game -- Larian is doing that. This attachment/identity that mere consumers of products develop, it's just not healthy imo. A more detached view is better. I mean, the original IE games aren't going anywhere, so if that's your jam, you will still be able to play them as much as ever. And with things like NWN EE, there's grand potential for lots of modules, even if the tech isn't as advanced as BG3.
And frankly I'd just like to reiterate Byrne20's comment. The negativity, especially framing it as something beyond your personal opinion, is just not contributing to good discussion on here.
@byrne20 It's hard to be positive when one of your favorite franchises has been turned into something it isn't. Imagine the uproar if Overwatch got turned into an RTS. People would have every right to be upset, and why would you expect positivity out of that?
Right. The use of the Baldurs Gate name was only to generate hype for fans of those games. They then went on and delivered Halo when we were looking for Mortal Kombat. Halo may be a perfectly good game in its own right, but it is in no way a sequel or even related to Mortal Kombat.
If they had just called this Dungeons and Dragons: Original Sin I would have been fine with it. I won't buy it because I don't like being manipulated.
Again, I'm just baffled by this need for the combat system to be a certain way.
Having some consistency in core features is pretty important to a franchise. Street Fighter didn't suddenly become a cart racing game between 2 and 3. Neverwinter Nights didn't become a first person shooter between 1 and 2. If any of that happened, the fans of the previous games would rightly be mad about it. The differences between 3 and the first two are just as big.
@Kamigoroshi I feel like the people who invested the most amount of hours into the BG series were never "huge" DnD fans. That's why it was so easy to get into BG; because you didn't need to be a DnD geek to understand what was going on. Even though it was over a DnD template, the combat system was constructed in a way that was straightforward and less focused on every roll of the dice. It flowed, and it allowed you to control the pace. If you wanted to metagame and speed through enemies, you could do that. If you were a beginner, you could play slowly and familiarize yourself while slowly but surely picking up the pace throughout the game as your skills increased.
Turn-based combat controls the pace for you. Every single battle is now relevant. This is NOT a good thing. AT ALL. This is because the world of BG is so vast that there are lots of inconsequential creatures lurking around the wilderness. The majority of your time in BG/BG2 was spent actually *avoiding* enemies because you only had a few potions and spells available to you and you didn't want to waste health fighting unnecessarily. Think about how many times in Pokemon you bump into creatures you have no interest in fighting and have to run from every battle. That's what this is like. That is extremely tedious and will get boring very quickly. It is not what BG fans are familiar with (nor ever wanted).
I certainly don't think it's the case at all in BG2 that you spend time avoiding enemies. There are certain fights you might avoid at lower levels like the liches or dragons, but those are all essentially locked away in little corners of the world. And those are maybe six or so encounters total.
What you're saying is kind of true in BG1, but only in a limited sense, imo. Even first time players, if they strictly follow the main quest line, won't encounter any fights that need to be avoided. And the too tough fights in the early accessible sections of the game are almost all conquerable by about level 4 or so. And while I think this worked for BG1 and worked for the time of the game's launch, I'm not at all sure this philosophy works today.
Again, I'm just baffled by this need for the combat system to be a certain way.
Having some consistency in core features is pretty important to a franchise. Street Fighter didn't suddenly become a cart racing game between 2 and 3. Neverwinter Nights didn't become a first person shooter between 1 and 2. If any of that happened, the fans of the previous games would rightly be mad about it. The differences between 3 and the first two are just as big.
No, those examples are objectively bigger changes than switching a CRPG from RTWP combat to turnbased combat
Comments
As I kept saying, that phrase was out of context.
Also, it seems the dialogues can't be skipped. And all lines are fully voiced no less. So people with chronic restartitis will also suffer massive ear bleedings.
That said - there is exactly a zero percent chance I’ll play it in EA until all races and Classes are added. It sounds like they’re all going to be there, but not necessarily while the game is in EA.
The central plot mechanism is a little over the top, but then, it’s not really any more so than being the bhaalspawn
https://www.gamespot.com/articles/how-larian-studios-hopes-to-transcend-baldurs-gate/1100-6474167/
Transitioning traps that run on a loop is different than creating two different combat systems from the ground up. I'm not sure Larian has ever argued it's the holy grail either, just that it's a better fit for the kind of game they want to make. It certainly looked good in the demo, imo.
I also don't get people who like CRPG's but can't stand turn based combat? You're really limiting yourself to a pretty small number of titles if that's your preference, and frankly, shortchanging your gaming experience.
You do you and I do me. I find no joy in how the majority of western RPG's does turn-based combat. It's not the thing I am looking for to entertain myself in my free time. Plain and simple. After watching Larian's gameplay reveal, I can state with a clean conscience that I do not plan to play the shown game. Just as like I do not plan playing any of their previously D:OS games.
I'm not interested in making you do anything, I merely wanted to share a point of view that I enjoy. CRPG's have overwhelmingly been turn based combat. There were tons of great titles, highly praised for their tactical combat at the time, like the old Gold Box classics.
There are, what? maybe around 10 or so total titles that are CRPG's with RTwP. And the consumer demand is clearly tilting towards turn-based, with PoE and Pathfinder switching back. So, again, you're really cutting out a ton of classics in the genre by completing eschewing these games. Seriously, the original Fallout? Pool of Radiance? The OS games, Wasteland 2? These are title that are worth your time if you enjoy the IE games!
I mean, D&D itself is a turn-based system. And at Baldur's Gate's original release, many hardcore D&D or old CRPG fans lambasted the realtime as being targeted at casual gamers, or of dumbing down the combat. It's certainly humorously ironic to me, to see the same narrow view expressed in the opposite direction today.
If they only care about "consumer demand", call this game DOS3 and be done with it. Do NOT use the beloved BG franchise just to cash in or promote your company.
The fact other games are turn based or that's the way the tide has gone in gaming makes absolutely no difference at all. The combat system is a staple part of the BG series, and a sequel needed to emulate it in order to even remotely feel like a Baldur's Gate game. It could be the only game series on planet Earth with rtwp, and I'd still say keep it that way. In fact, I'd be even more inclined to say that because at least it would be a different experience as opposed to just being a DOS clone!
In the first place, I do not limit myself to CRPG's. Real time action RPG's, Hack&Slash, JRPG's, Point and Click Adventure games, Sci-Fi exploration games, Horror games and Open World Survival games are all close to my gamer heart. Meaning I have a lot of variety to choose from.
I agree with you that CRPG's using RTwP are very, very few in number. Especially compared to those using TB - hence why I hold the small amount which does use RTwP precious. On top of my head the only western TB cRPG franchise I earnestly approved of was Drakensang. But that's more because The Dark Eye is less combat focused than its Northern American PnP counterpart.
Honestly, I couldn't care less about D&D as a TableTop ruleset: especially after the dozens and dozens of retconnings it went through. My interest in WotC's IP as a whole hit practically rock bottom level. So no, I certainly don't see myself as a hardcore D&D fan.
The dialogue was terrible, it looks like Dragon Age (and I do NOT mean that as a compliment), and nothing about it feels like Baldurs Gate. Not the character creation, not the combat, not the dialogue, not the level design.
And are we really going for another "save the world" narrative? My God, man. It has been done to death and beyond. The mission in Baldurs Gate was always about discovering who you were and coming to terms with it. It was a journey of the self. We do not need another world saviour. If Bhaal resurrected, the realms would have yawned. It was always about you.
Turn-based combat controls the pace for you. Every single battle is now relevant. This is NOT a good thing. AT ALL. This is because the world of BG is so vast that there are lots of inconsequential creatures lurking around the wilderness. The majority of your time in BG/BG2 was spent actually *avoiding* enemies because you only had a few potions and spells available to you and you didn't want to waste health fighting unnecessarily. Think about how many times in Pokemon you bump into creatures you have no interest in fighting and have to run from every battle. That's what this is like. That is extremely tedious and will get boring very quickly. It is not what BG fans are familiar with (nor ever wanted).
Well, the gameplay itself shows that it's not an OS clone, at least imo. Again, I'm just baffled by this need for the combat system to be a certain way. Again, this is echoing comments made in the late 90's that BG wasn't "true D&D" because it wasn't turn-based. While I personally prefer RTwP, in part because i played a ton of RTS games, I think turnbased CRPG's, and especially D&D franchise ones, can be excellent. They have been in the past!
And I don't get this undercurrent of ownership some fans feel towards the series. You bought the products, you love the games. But honestly, there's not "fan consensus" about how the BG series should evolve from here, so I think assuming that going turn-based is some kind of betrayal of the soul of the series or its fanbase, it's just not something that I think has evidence behind it. It's just your personal taste.
But even it were true, you're not the one pouring real labor or capital into this game -- Larian is doing that. This attachment/identity that mere consumers of products develop, it's just not healthy imo. A more detached view is better. I mean, the original IE games aren't going anywhere, so if that's your jam, you will still be able to play them as much as ever. And with things like NWN EE, there's grand potential for lots of modules, even if the tech isn't as advanced as BG3.
And frankly I'd just like to reiterate Byrne20's comment. The negativity, especially framing it as something beyond your personal opinion, is just not contributing to good discussion on here.
Right. The use of the Baldurs Gate name was only to generate hype for fans of those games. They then went on and delivered Halo when we were looking for Mortal Kombat. Halo may be a perfectly good game in its own right, but it is in no way a sequel or even related to Mortal Kombat.
If they had just called this Dungeons and Dragons: Original Sin I would have been fine with it. I won't buy it because I don't like being manipulated.
Having some consistency in core features is pretty important to a franchise. Street Fighter didn't suddenly become a cart racing game between 2 and 3. Neverwinter Nights didn't become a first person shooter between 1 and 2. If any of that happened, the fans of the previous games would rightly be mad about it. The differences between 3 and the first two are just as big.
I certainly don't think it's the case at all in BG2 that you spend time avoiding enemies. There are certain fights you might avoid at lower levels like the liches or dragons, but those are all essentially locked away in little corners of the world. And those are maybe six or so encounters total.
What you're saying is kind of true in BG1, but only in a limited sense, imo. Even first time players, if they strictly follow the main quest line, won't encounter any fights that need to be avoided. And the too tough fights in the early accessible sections of the game are almost all conquerable by about level 4 or so. And while I think this worked for BG1 and worked for the time of the game's launch, I'm not at all sure this philosophy works today.
No, those examples are objectively bigger changes than switching a CRPG from RTWP combat to turnbased combat