I criticized a lot Larian in the past and one good thing is that i was having extremely low expectations and Larian did a pretty impressive job. Far above what i would consider "good". Larian surprised me by far. Loved the encounter design and the verticality. Vincke did a amazing job and honestly, despite not being like BG1/2 and i prefering more relaistic artstyle over cartoonish artstyle, the game surprized me by a lot.
I don't wanna discuss Solasta here but i an wondering how it will affect then. I mean, pathfinder wrath of the righteous is completely different ruleset, high level module and etc. Solasta is lv 1~10 high verticality game.
I can understand people not liking the level 10 cap but this doesn’t bother me to much as I always loved the lower level combat of Baldur’s Gate 1. Always having a lot less spells to chose from with your Mage. The battles were admittedly more simplistic but even so I still loved that starting fresh feeling the first game has.
I think Shadow Heart is also my favourite NPC so far. She will definitely be part of my party for my first play I also like the Githyanki fighter Lae’Zel. I think if I am honest the only NPC I flat out do not like so far it would be Astarion. I am not a massive fan of vampires in general. They have never really appealed to me as a race to play as so I will probably end up using him as he is a thief I believe but if I can find a suitable thief replacement I likely will replace him lol
I also cannot wait to see the city of Baldur’s Gate ?
Loved what I saw and heard. For the first time I can say it without any reservations. Even the silent protagonist - come one, how many people get angry all the time the protagonist has a voice? "This is not how my character would sound like!" Here, enjoy whatever you imagine the true sound is. Not an issue at all.
Surprisingly good graphics too - well done without overemphasizing it, when visuals become the main (even the only in some cases) feature.
Now I can wholeheartedly say "can not wait for the launch day".
I did not get around to watch the latest gameplay before, and I am just going through it right now and post some thoughts.
Firstly, the dialogue in the camp scene. I like that they changes the writing for the dialogue options, good news. I am not really a fan of the dialogue from the Githyanki or Gale - it seems pretentious for want of a better word? Shadowheart seems ok.
Second part I got too is the encounter with the Goblins. I like that they changed the initiative system, but the combat feels very D:OS like to me.
Why? First turn and everything is on fire, a Goblin wins initiative and does AoE damage on the entire party without a chance to do anything & all the NPCs have high movement/teleport like activity to get up to enemy on the roof within a single turn. Not saying those types of encounter can't be interesting as a tactical puzzle but I think D:OS overused the elemental surfaces terribly and putting the enemies into tactically optimal places in the beginning of the combat was something they overdid as well. And of course, the enemy uses fire arrows.
EDIT: Also not sure if it the settings or the recording but the scene looks too faded out for my taste. Would prefer some vibrant & stronger colors.
Really nice to see that the new gameplay is starting to win a few more over. Nice to see more positive chat in here it’s definitely making it more pleasant for me to come back and read through lol
One thing that sound promising is the extensive use of skills, from "talking" skills in dialogues to perception and even Knowledge: nature to identify the exploding pods of the underdark.
I think the game will have a lot of exploration, seeing all the things hidden in the goblin village.
I always found suboptimal the non-implementation of the "coup de grass" in 5e, but it seems Larian created a homebrew way to eliminate helpless or sleeping enemies with a hit, something my sneaky characters in 5e misses a lot.
Second part I got too is the encounter with the Goblins. I like that they changed the initiative system, but the combat feels very D:OS like to me.
Why? First turn and everything is on fire, a Goblin wins initiative and does AoE damage on the entire party without a chance to do anything & all the NPCs have high movement/teleport like activity to get up to enemy on the roof within a single turn. Not saying those types of encounter can't be interesting as a tactical puzzle but I think D:OS overused the elemental surfaces terribly and putting the enemies into tactically optimal places in the beginning of the combat was something they overdid as well. And of course, the enemy uses fire arrows.
EDIT: Also not sure if it the settings or the recording but the scene looks too faded out for my taste. Would prefer some vibrant & stronger colors.
Uh, the only that actually could do that was the githyanki fighter, that has the "jump" race feature and "Action surge" because she´s a fighter, as per the rules of 5e. The wizard used the spell "Misty step", that does exactly that.
And the enemy was first because he won the initiative in the roll...
The others had to run and it took several combat turns to go up the roof. Same in the spider fight.
The combat was 100% a DND5e fight, from initiative to movement to spells, death saves or skill usage.
Personally I found the combat the best, not only the implementation of the rules but also how you can use heights, objects and fire surfaces to do things in combat. And using your boot, of course.
Now we are starting to have some hard facts that may justify loving/hating the game. It's good to see they heard the customer's complaints about how the dialogue was written and are rewriting it.
Loved what I saw and heard. For the first time I can say it without any reservations. Even the silent protagonist - come one, how many people get angry all the time the protagonist has a voice? "This is not how my character would sound like!" Here, enjoy whatever you imagine the true sound is. Not an issue at all.
Surprisingly good graphics too - well done without overemphasizing it, when visuals become the main (even the only in some cases) feature.
Now I can wholeheartedly say "can not wait for the launch day".
I saw someone on the Youtube comments suggest that Larian has already stated that a custom character will be fully voice acted as well. I havent see any confirmation of that, so take it for what you will.
I also agree with @PsicoVic about the combat. Very 5e.
Someone asked about the combat encounters and if they're appropriately leveled. No. Not even close. For some, that might break their immersion. As a DM - I'm constantly going through the MM and finding overleveled encounters that I then nerf into a reasonable fight with the players in other to fit the aesthetic of the situation they are in.
This was in fact a quite reasonable post @kanisatha which surprisingly I ended up to agree in most of the time. Thank you
Very nice of you to say so. I appreciate it.
I'm happy for you and the few others who feel this recent gameplay video helped improve your view of the game. Sadly for me, it worsened things because I was very strongly counting on the Side Initiative thing to help make an otherwise bad combat system more palatable. But at the same time, there is a certain value to gaining finality to the question of the combat system. At least now I know with absolute certainty that the game's combat system is beyond redemption and there isn't even the tiniest bit of a silver lining to it for me. I will hate the combat in this game. Period. In fact, I'll even detail how I would be forced to handle a combat encounter in this game: save game just before start of combat; enter combat; check initiative order of party; if at least 3 of 4 party members do not have adjacent initiatives so they can act together simulating side initiative, reload game; repeat until 3 of 4 party members have adjacent initiatives. As you can see, this would be mind-numbingly painful, and yet it is what I would have to do.
But now that I have completely given up on the combat system, my big question about the game has shifted to: To what extent will the game allow me to avoid combat encounters altogether? And if I cannot avoid a combat encounter, to what extent will the game allow me to breeze through the combat easily so that I can get past it and move on as quickly as possible?
Loved what I saw and heard. For the first time I can say it without any reservations. Even the silent protagonist - come one, how many people get angry all the time the protagonist has a voice? "This is not how my character would sound like!" Here, enjoy whatever you imagine the true sound is. Not an issue at all.
Surprisingly good graphics too - well done without overemphasizing it, when visuals become the main (even the only in some cases) feature.
Now I can wholeheartedly say "can not wait for the launch day".
I saw someone on the Youtube comments suggest that Larian has already stated that a custom character will be fully voice acted as well. I havent see any confirmation of that, so take it for what you will.
- Will custom (non origin) characters have Voice Acting, or is it for for origin characters only?
- Hello! Yes, custom characters will have voice acting - you’ll choose a voice as part of character creation.
- Will those voices be for just comments during combat or will they be voicing dialog conversations as well?
- They'll have full voice acting, just like origins!
I think Shadow Heart is also my favourite NPC so far. She will definitely be part of my party for my first play I also like the Githyanki fighter Lae’Zel. I think if I am honest the only NPC I flat out do not like so far it would be Astarion.
The companions are a huge question mark for me still. I will not play anything but my own custom character as the PC. But at the same time, I will also not use any generic or "mercenary" characters as my party companions, and want only fully fleshed-out companions. Thus far only Lae'Zel is a cool companion. The others are all lame/silly and, like you, I also flat-out hate the vampire. The vampire I would actually be inclined to kill right on meeting him. So will there be enough "origin" companions that I like to fill out my party AND provide a balanced party? At this point, no. So that's a huge issue.
This was in fact a quite reasonable post @kanisatha which surprisingly I ended up to agree in most of the time. Thank you
Very nice of you to say so. I appreciate it.
I'm happy for you and the few others who feel this recent gameplay video helped improve your view of the game. Sadly for me, it worsened things because I was very strongly counting on the Side Initiative thing to help make an otherwise bad combat system more palatable. But at the same time, there is a certain value to gaining finality to the question of the combat system. At least now I know with absolute certainty that the game's combat system is beyond redemption and there isn't even the tiniest bit of a silver lining to it for me. I will hate the combat in this game. Period. In fact, I'll even detail how I would be forced to handle a combat encounter in this game: save game just before start of combat; enter combat; check initiative order of party; if at least 3 of 4 party members do not have adjacent initiatives so they can act together simulating side initiative, reload game; repeat until 3 of 4 party members have adjacent initiatives. As you can see, this would be mind-numbingly painful, and yet it is what I would have to do.
But now that I have completely given up on the combat system, my big question about the game has shifted to: To what extent will the game allow me to avoid combat encounters altogether? And if I cannot avoid a combat encounter, to what extent will the game allow me to breeze through the combat easily so that I can get past it and move on as quickly as possible?
This sounds as if you're deciding to suffer just for the sake of it. If you don't like gameplay, just don't play. There are plenty of games that can be fun for you, why keep on suffering and then (obviously) sharing frustration? It's a bit the same as you, according to your comments, spent hundreds of hours in D:OS 2 but didn't like it at all and suffered.
If you play a stealthy character who also can bluff, you most likely will be able to evade 90% of combat, or more. I think they mentioned you are not forced to engage fights (just can't find the actual link to it).
I think Shadow Heart is also my favourite NPC so far. She will definitely be part of my party for my first play I also like the Githyanki fighter Lae’Zel. I think if I am honest the only NPC I flat out do not like so far it would be Astarion.
The companions are a huge question mark for me still. I will not play anything but my own custom character as the PC. But at the same time, I will also not use any generic or "mercenary" characters as my party companions, and want only fully fleshed-out companions. Thus far only Lae'Zel is a cool companion. The others are all lame/silly and, like you, I also flat-out hate the vampire. The vampire I would actually be inclined to kill right on meeting him. So will there be enough "origin" companions that I like to fill out my party AND provide a balanced party? At this point, no. So that's a huge issue.
Lame/silly is subjective and there is no cure if you find the available companions bad. If, in the same time, you're against using your own mercenaries, then there is nothing the game can do for you. Mind you, we won't know the final number of companions till the full game release (and not the Early Access).
In Pathfinder: Kingmaker, I found companions bland and generic from the first look. Yet I still keep using them, and not mercenaries, because I give everything a chance. And that game is far from providing "enough" companions for certain roles: only 1 tank, only 1 wizard, only 1 rogue if you don't like this or that companion.
It's unrealistic to expect you will have 20 companions fully fleshed out.
This was in fact a quite reasonable post @kanisatha which surprisingly I ended up to agree in most of the time. Thank you
Very nice of you to say so. I appreciate it.
I'm happy for you and the few others who feel this recent gameplay video helped improve your view of the game. Sadly for me, it worsened things because I was very strongly counting on the Side Initiative thing to help make an otherwise bad combat system more palatable. But at the same time, there is a certain value to gaining finality to the question of the combat system. At least now I know with absolute certainty that the game's combat system is beyond redemption and there isn't even the tiniest bit of a silver lining to it for me. I will hate the combat in this game. Period. In fact, I'll even detail how I would be forced to handle a combat encounter in this game: save game just before start of combat; enter combat; check initiative order of party; if at least 3 of 4 party members do not have adjacent initiatives so they can act together simulating side initiative, reload game; repeat until 3 of 4 party members have adjacent initiatives. As you can see, this would be mind-numbingly painful, and yet it is what I would have to do.
But now that I have completely given up on the combat system, my big question about the game has shifted to: To what extent will the game allow me to avoid combat encounters altogether? And if I cannot avoid a combat encounter, to what extent will the game allow me to breeze through the combat easily so that I can get past it and move on as quickly as possible?
Mate, why bother to play this game, at all? It seems it will be a pure torture for you. I don't think BG3 will allow to finish it without fighting, that would be even a surprise for me if this would be the case. Having said that the second option that would work for you, that is the possibility to switch to "Story mode" at will is entirely possible and I would definitely support such a feature.
To be honest I'm not entirely sure I understand the concept of side initiative (I'm more of an RP player, not a game mechanics expert). Does it mean that there is a turn of all your NPC's and then there is a turn of all your enemies? If this is the case, then I definitely like individual initiative more. Makes more sense to me.
This was in fact a quite reasonable post @kanisatha which surprisingly I ended up to agree in most of the time. Thank you
Very nice of you to say so. I appreciate it.
I'm happy for you and the few others who feel this recent gameplay video helped improve your view of the game. Sadly for me, it worsened things because I was very strongly counting on the Side Initiative thing to help make an otherwise bad combat system more palatable. But at the same time, there is a certain value to gaining finality to the question of the combat system. At least now I know with absolute certainty that the game's combat system is beyond redemption and there isn't even the tiniest bit of a silver lining to it for me. I will hate the combat in this game. Period. In fact, I'll even detail how I would be forced to handle a combat encounter in this game: save game just before start of combat; enter combat; check initiative order of party; if at least 3 of 4 party members do not have adjacent initiatives so they can act together simulating side initiative, reload game; repeat until 3 of 4 party members have adjacent initiatives. As you can see, this would be mind-numbingly painful, and yet it is what I would have to do.
But now that I have completely given up on the combat system, my big question about the game has shifted to: To what extent will the game allow me to avoid combat encounters altogether? And if I cannot avoid a combat encounter, to what extent will the game allow me to breeze through the combat easily so that I can get past it and move on as quickly as possible?
This sounds as if you're deciding to suffer just for the sake of it. If you don't like gameplay, just don't play. There are plenty of games that can be fun for you, why keep on suffering and then (obviously) sharing frustration? It's a bit the same as you, according to your comments, spent hundreds of hours in D:OS 2 but didn't like it at all and suffered.
If you play a stealthy character who also can bluff, you most likely will be able to evade 90% of combat, or more. I think they mentioned you are not forced to engage fights (just can't find the actual link to it).
Because you and others keep ignoring what I have repeatedly said, which is how much I love FR, that FR is my favorite RPG setting of all, and I very badly miss playing games in FR and want to play FR games. Exactly how many FR games do I have available to play (old games don't count)? How many FR games can I reasonably expect to have available to play in the coming years?
As for using skill/ability checks to evade combat, yes, I also having been paying close attention to what's being said on that issue. But again, the question is whether the DCs will be reasonable or unfairly punitive? Because even if the DCs are ridiculously high, I will keep reloading the game until I make that check every single time the game gives me that option to get around a combat encounter. But that too will be a painful chore.
This was in fact a quite reasonable post @kanisatha which surprisingly I ended up to agree in most of the time. Thank you
Very nice of you to say so. I appreciate it.
I'm happy for you and the few others who feel this recent gameplay video helped improve your view of the game. Sadly for me, it worsened things because I was very strongly counting on the Side Initiative thing to help make an otherwise bad combat system more palatable. But at the same time, there is a certain value to gaining finality to the question of the combat system. At least now I know with absolute certainty that the game's combat system is beyond redemption and there isn't even the tiniest bit of a silver lining to it for me. I will hate the combat in this game. Period. In fact, I'll even detail how I would be forced to handle a combat encounter in this game: save game just before start of combat; enter combat; check initiative order of party; if at least 3 of 4 party members do not have adjacent initiatives so they can act together simulating side initiative, reload game; repeat until 3 of 4 party members have adjacent initiatives. As you can see, this would be mind-numbingly painful, and yet it is what I would have to do.
But now that I have completely given up on the combat system, my big question about the game has shifted to: To what extent will the game allow me to avoid combat encounters altogether? And if I cannot avoid a combat encounter, to what extent will the game allow me to breeze through the combat easily so that I can get past it and move on as quickly as possible?
This sounds as if you're deciding to suffer just for the sake of it. If you don't like gameplay, just don't play. There are plenty of games that can be fun for you, why keep on suffering and then (obviously) sharing frustration? It's a bit the same as you, according to your comments, spent hundreds of hours in D:OS 2 but didn't like it at all and suffered.
If you play a stealthy character who also can bluff, you most likely will be able to evade 90% of combat, or more. I think they mentioned you are not forced to engage fights (just can't find the actual link to it).
Because you and others keep ignoring what I have repeatedly said, which is how much I love FR, that FR is my favorite RPG setting of all, and I very badly miss playing games in FR and want to play FR games. Exactly how many FR games do I have available to play (old games don't count)? How many FR games can I reasonably expect to have available to play in the coming years?
I think Shadow Heart is also my favourite NPC so far. She will definitely be part of my party for my first play I also like the Githyanki fighter Lae’Zel. I think if I am honest the only NPC I flat out do not like so far it would be Astarion.
The companions are a huge question mark for me still. I will not play anything but my own custom character as the PC. But at the same time, I will also not use any generic or "mercenary" characters as my party companions, and want only fully fleshed-out companions. Thus far only Lae'Zel is a cool companion. The others are all lame/silly and, like you, I also flat-out hate the vampire. The vampire I would actually be inclined to kill right on meeting him. So will there be enough "origin" companions that I like to fill out my party AND provide a balanced party? At this point, no. So that's a huge issue.
Lame/silly is subjective and there is no cure if you find the available companions bad. If, in the same time, you're against using your own mercenaries, then there is nothing the game can do for you. Mind you, we won't know the final number of companions till the full game release (and not the Early Access).
In Pathfinder: Kingmaker, I found companions bland and generic from the first look. Yet I still keep using them, and not mercenaries, because I give everything a chance. And that game is far from providing "enough" companions for certain roles: only 1 tank, only 1 wizard, only 1 rogue if you don't like this or that companion.
It's unrealistic to expect you will have 20 companions fully fleshed out.
Yes this I also agree. If the companions are lame to me, but that's what's available to me, then I have no choice but to use them anyway. This was just a question I am raising about the range of companions we will have, not some demand that they give me 20 companions I will love.
@kanisatha do you have any interest in the upcoming Dark Alliance game? It doesn’t appear to be related to the previous Dark Alliance games in any way and it might fit your interest? Only a suggestion as I don’t have much info other than it appears that you play as Drizzt and his friends. But it’s set in the Icewind Dale area I believe which is forgotten realms after all
This was in fact a quite reasonable post @kanisatha which surprisingly I ended up to agree in most of the time. Thank you
Very nice of you to say so. I appreciate it.
I'm happy for you and the few others who feel this recent gameplay video helped improve your view of the game. Sadly for me, it worsened things because I was very strongly counting on the Side Initiative thing to help make an otherwise bad combat system more palatable. But at the same time, there is a certain value to gaining finality to the question of the combat system. At least now I know with absolute certainty that the game's combat system is beyond redemption and there isn't even the tiniest bit of a silver lining to it for me. I will hate the combat in this game. Period. In fact, I'll even detail how I would be forced to handle a combat encounter in this game: save game just before start of combat; enter combat; check initiative order of party; if at least 3 of 4 party members do not have adjacent initiatives so they can act together simulating side initiative, reload game; repeat until 3 of 4 party members have adjacent initiatives. As you can see, this would be mind-numbingly painful, and yet it is what I would have to do.
But now that I have completely given up on the combat system, my big question about the game has shifted to: To what extent will the game allow me to avoid combat encounters altogether? And if I cannot avoid a combat encounter, to what extent will the game allow me to breeze through the combat easily so that I can get past it and move on as quickly as possible?
This sounds as if you're deciding to suffer just for the sake of it. If you don't like gameplay, just don't play. There are plenty of games that can be fun for you, why keep on suffering and then (obviously) sharing frustration? It's a bit the same as you, according to your comments, spent hundreds of hours in D:OS 2 but didn't like it at all and suffered.
If you play a stealthy character who also can bluff, you most likely will be able to evade 90% of combat, or more. I think they mentioned you are not forced to engage fights (just can't find the actual link to it).
Because you and others keep ignoring what I have repeatedly said, which is how much I love FR, that FR is my favorite RPG setting of all, and I very badly miss playing games in FR and want to play FR games. Exactly how many FR games do I have available to play (old games don't count)? How many FR games can I reasonably expect to have available to play in the coming years?
Just curious, did you play Sword Coast Legends?
Yes I did. Still have its shortcut on my desktop expecting to replay it in the future. Yes as with many others, I also did not care for some of the mechanics changes, especially ability trees. But that it was using FR, and it actually had an interesting story, interesting quests, and at least some interesting companions meant I liked it. The DLC for the game (set in the Underdark against drow) is especially fun.
@kanisatha do you have any interest in the upcoming Dark Alliance game? It doesn’t appear to be related to the previous Dark Alliance games in any way and it might fit your interest? Only a suggestion as I don’t have much info other than it appears that you play as Drizzt and his friends. But it’s set in the Icewind Dale area I believe which is forgotten realms after all
I've commented on this game in its thread. The problem with it is that it is clearly meant only for co-op play. According to the devs themselves, while the game will allow you to play it single-player, single-player also means solo play and no party and as such the difficulty will be too brutal for you to likely survive most encounters.
This was in fact a quite reasonable post @kanisatha which surprisingly I ended up to agree in most of the time. Thank you
Very nice of you to say so. I appreciate it.
I'm happy for you and the few others who feel this recent gameplay video helped improve your view of the game. Sadly for me, it worsened things because I was very strongly counting on the Side Initiative thing to help make an otherwise bad combat system more palatable. But at the same time, there is a certain value to gaining finality to the question of the combat system. At least now I know with absolute certainty that the game's combat system is beyond redemption and there isn't even the tiniest bit of a silver lining to it for me. I will hate the combat in this game. Period. In fact, I'll even detail how I would be forced to handle a combat encounter in this game: save game just before start of combat; enter combat; check initiative order of party; if at least 3 of 4 party members do not have adjacent initiatives so they can act together simulating side initiative, reload game; repeat until 3 of 4 party members have adjacent initiatives. As you can see, this would be mind-numbingly painful, and yet it is what I would have to do.
But now that I have completely given up on the combat system, my big question about the game has shifted to: To what extent will the game allow me to avoid combat encounters altogether? And if I cannot avoid a combat encounter, to what extent will the game allow me to breeze through the combat easily so that I can get past it and move on as quickly as possible?
This sounds as if you're deciding to suffer just for the sake of it. If you don't like gameplay, just don't play. There are plenty of games that can be fun for you, why keep on suffering and then (obviously) sharing frustration? It's a bit the same as you, according to your comments, spent hundreds of hours in D:OS 2 but didn't like it at all and suffered.
If you play a stealthy character who also can bluff, you most likely will be able to evade 90% of combat, or more. I think they mentioned you are not forced to engage fights (just can't find the actual link to it).
Because you and others keep ignoring what I have repeatedly said, which is how much I love FR, that FR is my favorite RPG setting of all, and I very badly miss playing games in FR and want to play FR games. Exactly how many FR games do I have available to play (old games don't count)? How many FR games can I reasonably expect to have available to play in the coming years?
Just curious, did you play Sword Coast Legends?
Yes I did. Still have its shortcut on my desktop expecting to replay it in the future. Yes as with many others, I also did not care for some of the mechanics changes, especially ability trees. But that it was using FR, and it actually had an interesting story, interesting quests, and at least some interesting companions meant I liked it. The DLC for the game (set in the Underdark against drow) is especially fun.
So how come that you didn't care for mechanics changes in SCL, while on the other hand you care deeply for it in BG3? Is it only because of the "Baldur's Gate" franchise?
This was in fact a quite reasonable post @kanisatha which surprisingly I ended up to agree in most of the time. Thank you
Very nice of you to say so. I appreciate it.
I'm happy for you and the few others who feel this recent gameplay video helped improve your view of the game. Sadly for me, it worsened things because I was very strongly counting on the Side Initiative thing to help make an otherwise bad combat system more palatable. But at the same time, there is a certain value to gaining finality to the question of the combat system. At least now I know with absolute certainty that the game's combat system is beyond redemption and there isn't even the tiniest bit of a silver lining to it for me. I will hate the combat in this game. Period. In fact, I'll even detail how I would be forced to handle a combat encounter in this game: save game just before start of combat; enter combat; check initiative order of party; if at least 3 of 4 party members do not have adjacent initiatives so they can act together simulating side initiative, reload game; repeat until 3 of 4 party members have adjacent initiatives. As you can see, this would be mind-numbingly painful, and yet it is what I would have to do.
But now that I have completely given up on the combat system, my big question about the game has shifted to: To what extent will the game allow me to avoid combat encounters altogether? And if I cannot avoid a combat encounter, to what extent will the game allow me to breeze through the combat easily so that I can get past it and move on as quickly as possible?
This sounds as if you're deciding to suffer just for the sake of it. If you don't like gameplay, just don't play. There are plenty of games that can be fun for you, why keep on suffering and then (obviously) sharing frustration? It's a bit the same as you, according to your comments, spent hundreds of hours in D:OS 2 but didn't like it at all and suffered.
If you play a stealthy character who also can bluff, you most likely will be able to evade 90% of combat, or more. I think they mentioned you are not forced to engage fights (just can't find the actual link to it).
Because you and others keep ignoring what I have repeatedly said, which is how much I love FR, that FR is my favorite RPG setting of all, and I very badly miss playing games in FR and want to play FR games. Exactly how many FR games do I have available to play (old games don't count)? How many FR games can I reasonably expect to have available to play in the coming years?
Just curious, did you play Sword Coast Legends?
Yes I did. Still have its shortcut on my desktop expecting to replay it in the future. Yes as with many others, I also did not care for some of the mechanics changes, especially ability trees. But that it was using FR, and it actually had an interesting story, interesting quests, and at least some interesting companions meant I liked it. The DLC for the game (set in the Underdark against drow) is especially fun.
So how come that you didn't care for mechanics changes in SCL, while on the other hand you care deeply for it in BG3? Is it only because of the "Baldur's Gate" franchise?
I think you are conflating mechanics with combat system. Mechanics is ALL the rules of the game system. I have no problem with the mechanics overall of BG3, only the combat system. I'm even ok with 5e D&D. I very strongly prefer 3.5e, but 5e is second-best and way better than 2e.
This was in fact a quite reasonable post @kanisatha which surprisingly I ended up to agree in most of the time. Thank you
Very nice of you to say so. I appreciate it.
I'm happy for you and the few others who feel this recent gameplay video helped improve your view of the game. Sadly for me, it worsened things because I was very strongly counting on the Side Initiative thing to help make an otherwise bad combat system more palatable. But at the same time, there is a certain value to gaining finality to the question of the combat system. At least now I know with absolute certainty that the game's combat system is beyond redemption and there isn't even the tiniest bit of a silver lining to it for me. I will hate the combat in this game. Period. In fact, I'll even detail how I would be forced to handle a combat encounter in this game: save game just before start of combat; enter combat; check initiative order of party; if at least 3 of 4 party members do not have adjacent initiatives so they can act together simulating side initiative, reload game; repeat until 3 of 4 party members have adjacent initiatives. As you can see, this would be mind-numbingly painful, and yet it is what I would have to do.
But now that I have completely given up on the combat system, my big question about the game has shifted to: To what extent will the game allow me to avoid combat encounters altogether? And if I cannot avoid a combat encounter, to what extent will the game allow me to breeze through the combat easily so that I can get past it and move on as quickly as possible?
This sounds as if you're deciding to suffer just for the sake of it. If you don't like gameplay, just don't play. There are plenty of games that can be fun for you, why keep on suffering and then (obviously) sharing frustration? It's a bit the same as you, according to your comments, spent hundreds of hours in D:OS 2 but didn't like it at all and suffered.
If you play a stealthy character who also can bluff, you most likely will be able to evade 90% of combat, or more. I think they mentioned you are not forced to engage fights (just can't find the actual link to it).
Because you and others keep ignoring what I have repeatedly said, which is how much I love FR, that FR is my favorite RPG setting of all, and I very badly miss playing games in FR and want to play FR games. Exactly how many FR games do I have available to play (old games don't count)? How many FR games can I reasonably expect to have available to play in the coming years?
Just curious, did you play Sword Coast Legends?
Yes I did. Still have its shortcut on my desktop expecting to replay it in the future. Yes as with many others, I also did not care for some of the mechanics changes, especially ability trees. But that it was using FR, and it actually had an interesting story, interesting quests, and at least some interesting companions meant I liked it. The DLC for the game (set in the Underdark against drow) is especially fun.
So how come that you didn't care for mechanics changes in SCL, while on the other hand you care deeply for it in BG3? Is it only because of the "Baldur's Gate" franchise?
I think you are conflating mechanics with combat system. Mechanics is ALL the rules of the game system. I have no problem with the mechanics overall of BG3, only the combat system. I'm even ok with 5e D&D. I very strongly prefer 3.5e, but 5e is second-best and way better than 2e.
Fair point. I hope all other aspects of the game turn out to be at least managable for you ? I need to deep dive in 5th edition myself, because I lost interest with the coming of 4th edition. My favorite edition mechanics-wise is 3.5 and lore-wise 2nd.
@JuliusBorisov "People who have been very negative regarding BG3 just got confirmation that the game wouldn't be what they envisioned as their "perfect" BG3."
I don't care about some "perfect" BG3. I just want it to be "BG3" at all. Nothing that has been shown of this game makes me think of the main Baldur's Gate series. Nothing. Everything from the art style to the mechanics is as far away from Baldur's Gate as they could get while taking place on the Sword Coast.
"It might not be a 100% continuation of the BG gaming series, but it seems like a genuine continuation of how DnD can be realized in a video-game"
Then it fails. The game is being blatantly marketed as a direct sequel and Sven won't stop insisting that it is one. I still can't get over how fraudulant Larian's marketing has been.
@byrne20 I can understand people not liking the level 10 cap"
Based on what I've read in thread, the problem isn't the cap, so much as the kinds of monsters being presented at such a low level. Level 10 and under characters have no business attempting to take on a lot of the enemies being showcased. Underdark when level 10 is the BEST you can hope to achieve? Yeah no, that's completely immersion ruining.
Fair point. I hope all other aspects of the game turn out to be at least managable for you ? I need to deep dive in 5th edition myself, because I lost interest with the coming of 4th edition. My favorite edition mechanics-wise is 3.5 and lore-wise 2nd.
Yeah funny thing about 5e mechanics. The big argument about 5e is that it has significantly streamlined rules and mechanics relative to 3.5e. Well, I'm currently playing my first ever 5e game through a virtual tabletop, and I am finding it much LESS streamlined and quite overwhelming and frustrating in the number of things you can do each round in combat, the number of options you have for everything, and the number of very specific rules you are expected to follow to do any of those things. I constantly find myself failing to remember that I can do this or that, and need the other players to keep reminding me. Very frustrating.
About lore and the level cap and Underdark monsters, I think it's ok for a game to have some (not many) enemies in it that you are not supposed to take on and instead are supposed to flee from them. They just should not be in encounters that you absolutely must get through to advance the story or a quest, but instead are purely optional elements that can be completely avoided/skipped. From PoE to P:Km to Dragon Age and Witcher, all games have them.
I don't care about some "perfect" BG3. I just want it to be "BG3" at all. Nothing that has been shown of this game makes me think of the main Baldur's Gate series. Nothing. Everything from the art style to the mechanics is as far away from Baldur's Gate as they could get while taking place on the Sword Coast.
To have it retain original BG series art style BG3 would have to be made in Infinity Engine. You do realize that was not an option from the beginning?
As for connections with BG1/BG2 we only saw a tiny fragment of the game and already were presented with a familiar face - Volo. I bet there will be more. Who knows, maybe we will meet some elvish NPC's from original saga (Jaheira, Aerie, Xan, Viconia). They won't age much during those 100 years.
Mechanics is just a mechanics, it isn't the main factor that makes the game more or less faithful to its predecessor. The Witcher 1 and The Witcher 3 have completely different mechanics and both are very coherent where it comes to the lore.
Then it fails. The game is being blatantly marketed as a direct sequel and Sven won't stop insisting that it is one. I still can't get over how fraudulant Larian's marketing has been.
Please provide a quote that Sven said it is a *direct* sequel to BG2. As in that it will involve the same protagonists, characters, timeline etc. I watched many interviews and failed to notice such statement.
Based on what I've read in thread, the problem isn't the cap, so much as the kinds of monsters being presented at such a low level. Level 10 and under characters have no business attempting to take on a lot of the enemies being showcased. Underdark when level 10 is the BEST you can hope to achieve? Yeah no, that's completely immersion ruining.
And this is a valid concern. If they don't plan a sequel, why bother capping the game at level 10? If they do plan a sequel it's risky to show all the good stuff and high level locations, like Underdark, in their first game. There is a reason why none of those were present in BG1.
About lore and the level cap and Underdark monsters, I think it's ok for a game to have some (not many) enemies in it that you are not supposed to take on and instead are supposed to flee from them. They just should not be in encounters that you absolutely must get through to advance the story or a quest, but instead are purely optional elements that can be completely avoided/skipped. From PoE to P:Km to Dragon Age and Witcher, all games have them.
And maybe I'm wrong, but judging from the way you can enter the Underdark I *think* it's purely optional location. What I'm more concerned is that Sven fought toe to toe with Hook Horror with just one 3rd level character. I don't remember hook horrors being that week, but maybe these have been nerfed in 5ed. What I fear, though, is Larian buffed party skills and abilities or nerfed the ones from enemies just to show more exciting, normally high level locations. That would be very bad.
@Cahir "Please provide a quote that Sven said it is a *direct* sequel to BG2. As in that it will involve the same protagonists, characters, timeline etc. I watched many interviews and failed to notice such statement."
Check the AMA from awhile back. I asked him if he considers BG3 a direct sequel and why. He asnwered that yes, it IS a direct sequel. But wouldn't say why. The questions and answers have their own thread here IIRC.
"To have it retain original BG series art style BG3 would have to be made in Infinity Engine. You do realize that was not an option from the beginning?"
No it wouldn't. It would just need to be isometric with a similar art style (style, not graphical quality). Any number of engines could do this. It doesn't, and shouldn't, be identical. But it should be a recognizable continuation and refinement of the previous titles.
"Mechanics is just a mechanics, it isn't the main factor that makes the game more or less faithful to its predecessor. The Witcher 1 and The Witcher 3 have completely different mechanics and both are very coherent where it comes to the lore."
Completely and utterly disagree. Mechanics are how one interacts with the game. Which has a MAJOR impact on how it feels to play. IMO, mechanics and game feel are more important than trying to copy the art style.
Also, the Witcher example isn't relevant. People have been making a false equivalence with cherry picked examples since the start of this section of the forums. The Witcher (and Dragon Age, which people pointed to first) changed things up with EVERY ISNTALLMENT. Each game was significantly different, so there were zero expectations that they were going to be the same. Baldur's Gate kept the same mechanics and style, while improving on it for each iteration. This comes with certain expectations. Larian is breaking a 15 year pattern for no real discernable reason other than, "Baldur's Gate's play style doesn't work anymore." Which is complete bull.
Comments
I don't wanna discuss Solasta here but i an wondering how it will affect then. I mean, pathfinder wrath of the righteous is completely different ruleset, high level module and etc. Solasta is lv 1~10 high verticality game.
I can understand people not liking the level 10 cap but this doesn’t bother me to much as I always loved the lower level combat of Baldur’s Gate 1. Always having a lot less spells to chose from with your Mage. The battles were admittedly more simplistic but even so I still loved that starting fresh feeling the first game has.
I think Shadow Heart is also my favourite NPC so far. She will definitely be part of my party for my first play
I also cannot wait to see the city of Baldur’s Gate ?
Surprisingly good graphics too - well done without overemphasizing it, when visuals become the main (even the only in some cases) feature.
Now I can wholeheartedly say "can not wait for the launch day".
Firstly, the dialogue in the camp scene. I like that they changes the writing for the dialogue options, good news. I am not really a fan of the dialogue from the Githyanki or Gale - it seems pretentious for want of a better word? Shadowheart seems ok.
Second part I got too is the encounter with the Goblins. I like that they changed the initiative system, but the combat feels very D:OS like to me.
Why? First turn and everything is on fire, a Goblin wins initiative and does AoE damage on the entire party without a chance to do anything & all the NPCs have high movement/teleport like activity to get up to enemy on the roof within a single turn. Not saying those types of encounter can't be interesting as a tactical puzzle but I think D:OS overused the elemental surfaces terribly and putting the enemies into tactically optimal places in the beginning of the combat was something they overdid as well. And of course, the enemy uses fire arrows.
EDIT: Also not sure if it the settings or the recording but the scene looks too faded out for my taste. Would prefer some vibrant & stronger colors.
I am also a little dissappointed by the level cap, but considering BG1+BG2, it is the perfect setup for another sequel...
One thing that sound promising is the extensive use of skills, from "talking" skills in dialogues to perception and even Knowledge: nature to identify the exploding pods of the underdark.
I think the game will have a lot of exploration, seeing all the things hidden in the goblin village.
I always found suboptimal the non-implementation of the "coup de grass" in 5e, but it seems Larian created a homebrew way to eliminate helpless or sleeping enemies with a hit, something my sneaky characters in 5e misses a lot.
Uh, the only that actually could do that was the githyanki fighter, that has the "jump" race feature and "Action surge" because she´s a fighter, as per the rules of 5e. The wizard used the spell "Misty step", that does exactly that.
And the enemy was first because he won the initiative in the roll...
The others had to run and it took several combat turns to go up the roof. Same in the spider fight.
The combat was 100% a DND5e fight, from initiative to movement to spells, death saves or skill usage.
Personally I found the combat the best, not only the implementation of the rules but also how you can use heights, objects and fire surfaces to do things in combat. And using your boot, of course.
I saw someone on the Youtube comments suggest that Larian has already stated that a custom character will be fully voice acted as well. I havent see any confirmation of that, so take it for what you will.
I also agree with @PsicoVic about the combat. Very 5e.
Someone asked about the combat encounters and if they're appropriately leveled. No. Not even close. For some, that might break their immersion. As a DM - I'm constantly going through the MM and finding overleveled encounters that I then nerf into a reasonable fight with the players in other to fit the aesthetic of the situation they are in.
Very nice of you to say so. I appreciate it.
I'm happy for you and the few others who feel this recent gameplay video helped improve your view of the game. Sadly for me, it worsened things because I was very strongly counting on the Side Initiative thing to help make an otherwise bad combat system more palatable. But at the same time, there is a certain value to gaining finality to the question of the combat system. At least now I know with absolute certainty that the game's combat system is beyond redemption and there isn't even the tiniest bit of a silver lining to it for me. I will hate the combat in this game. Period. In fact, I'll even detail how I would be forced to handle a combat encounter in this game: save game just before start of combat; enter combat; check initiative order of party; if at least 3 of 4 party members do not have adjacent initiatives so they can act together simulating side initiative, reload game; repeat until 3 of 4 party members have adjacent initiatives. As you can see, this would be mind-numbingly painful, and yet it is what I would have to do.
But now that I have completely given up on the combat system, my big question about the game has shifted to: To what extent will the game allow me to avoid combat encounters altogether? And if I cannot avoid a combat encounter, to what extent will the game allow me to breeze through the combat easily so that I can get past it and move on as quickly as possible?
- Will custom (non origin) characters have Voice Acting, or is it for for origin characters only?
- Hello! Yes, custom characters will have voice acting - you’ll choose a voice as part of character creation.
- Will those voices be for just comments during combat or will they be voicing dialog conversations as well?
- They'll have full voice acting, just like origins!
https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/fhk1u3/im_swen_vincke_creative_director_at_larian/fkbnauj/
https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/fhk1u3/im_swen_vincke_creative_director_at_larian/fkbxr4h/
The companions are a huge question mark for me still. I will not play anything but my own custom character as the PC. But at the same time, I will also not use any generic or "mercenary" characters as my party companions, and want only fully fleshed-out companions. Thus far only Lae'Zel is a cool companion. The others are all lame/silly and, like you, I also flat-out hate the vampire. The vampire I would actually be inclined to kill right on meeting him. So will there be enough "origin" companions that I like to fill out my party AND provide a balanced party? At this point, no. So that's a huge issue.
This sounds as if you're deciding to suffer just for the sake of it. If you don't like gameplay, just don't play. There are plenty of games that can be fun for you, why keep on suffering and then (obviously) sharing frustration? It's a bit the same as you, according to your comments, spent hundreds of hours in D:OS 2 but didn't like it at all and suffered.
If you play a stealthy character who also can bluff, you most likely will be able to evade 90% of combat, or more. I think they mentioned you are not forced to engage fights (just can't find the actual link to it).
Lame/silly is subjective and there is no cure if you find the available companions bad. If, in the same time, you're against using your own mercenaries, then there is nothing the game can do for you. Mind you, we won't know the final number of companions till the full game release (and not the Early Access).
In Pathfinder: Kingmaker, I found companions bland and generic from the first look. Yet I still keep using them, and not mercenaries, because I give everything a chance. And that game is far from providing "enough" companions for certain roles: only 1 tank, only 1 wizard, only 1 rogue if you don't like this or that companion.
It's unrealistic to expect you will have 20 companions fully fleshed out.
Mate, why bother to play this game, at all? It seems it will be a pure torture for you. I don't think BG3 will allow to finish it without fighting, that would be even a surprise for me if this would be the case. Having said that the second option that would work for you, that is the possibility to switch to "Story mode" at will is entirely possible and I would definitely support such a feature.
To be honest I'm not entirely sure I understand the concept of side initiative (I'm more of an RP player, not a game mechanics expert). Does it mean that there is a turn of all your NPC's and then there is a turn of all your enemies? If this is the case, then I definitely like individual initiative more. Makes more sense to me.
Because you and others keep ignoring what I have repeatedly said, which is how much I love FR, that FR is my favorite RPG setting of all, and I very badly miss playing games in FR and want to play FR games. Exactly how many FR games do I have available to play (old games don't count)? How many FR games can I reasonably expect to have available to play in the coming years?
As for using skill/ability checks to evade combat, yes, I also having been paying close attention to what's being said on that issue. But again, the question is whether the DCs will be reasonable or unfairly punitive? Because even if the DCs are ridiculously high, I will keep reloading the game until I make that check every single time the game gives me that option to get around a combat encounter. But that too will be a painful chore.
Just curious, did you play Sword Coast Legends?
Yes this I also agree. If the companions are lame to me, but that's what's available to me, then I have no choice but to use them anyway. This was just a question I am raising about the range of companions we will have, not some demand that they give me 20 companions I will love.
Yes I did. Still have its shortcut on my desktop expecting to replay it in the future. Yes as with many others, I also did not care for some of the mechanics changes, especially ability trees. But that it was using FR, and it actually had an interesting story, interesting quests, and at least some interesting companions meant I liked it. The DLC for the game (set in the Underdark against drow) is especially fun.
I've commented on this game in its thread. The problem with it is that it is clearly meant only for co-op play. According to the devs themselves, while the game will allow you to play it single-player, single-player also means solo play and no party and as such the difficulty will be too brutal for you to likely survive most encounters.
So how come that you didn't care for mechanics changes in SCL, while on the other hand you care deeply for it in BG3? Is it only because of the "Baldur's Gate" franchise?
I think you are conflating mechanics with combat system. Mechanics is ALL the rules of the game system. I have no problem with the mechanics overall of BG3, only the combat system. I'm even ok with 5e D&D. I very strongly prefer 3.5e, but 5e is second-best and way better than 2e.
Fair point. I hope all other aspects of the game turn out to be at least managable for you ? I need to deep dive in 5th edition myself, because I lost interest with the coming of 4th edition. My favorite edition mechanics-wise is 3.5 and lore-wise 2nd.
I don't care about some "perfect" BG3. I just want it to be "BG3" at all. Nothing that has been shown of this game makes me think of the main Baldur's Gate series. Nothing. Everything from the art style to the mechanics is as far away from Baldur's Gate as they could get while taking place on the Sword Coast.
"It might not be a 100% continuation of the BG gaming series, but it seems like a genuine continuation of how DnD can be realized in a video-game"
Then it fails. The game is being blatantly marketed as a direct sequel and Sven won't stop insisting that it is one. I still can't get over how fraudulant Larian's marketing has been.
@byrne20 I can understand people not liking the level 10 cap"
Based on what I've read in thread, the problem isn't the cap, so much as the kinds of monsters being presented at such a low level. Level 10 and under characters have no business attempting to take on a lot of the enemies being showcased. Underdark when level 10 is the BEST you can hope to achieve? Yeah no, that's completely immersion ruining.
Yeah funny thing about 5e mechanics. The big argument about 5e is that it has significantly streamlined rules and mechanics relative to 3.5e. Well, I'm currently playing my first ever 5e game through a virtual tabletop, and I am finding it much LESS streamlined and quite overwhelming and frustrating in the number of things you can do each round in combat, the number of options you have for everything, and the number of very specific rules you are expected to follow to do any of those things. I constantly find myself failing to remember that I can do this or that, and need the other players to keep reminding me. Very frustrating.
About lore and the level cap and Underdark monsters, I think it's ok for a game to have some (not many) enemies in it that you are not supposed to take on and instead are supposed to flee from them. They just should not be in encounters that you absolutely must get through to advance the story or a quest, but instead are purely optional elements that can be completely avoided/skipped. From PoE to P:Km to Dragon Age and Witcher, all games have them.
To have it retain original BG series art style BG3 would have to be made in Infinity Engine. You do realize that was not an option from the beginning?
As for connections with BG1/BG2 we only saw a tiny fragment of the game and already were presented with a familiar face - Volo. I bet there will be more. Who knows, maybe we will meet some elvish NPC's from original saga (Jaheira, Aerie, Xan, Viconia). They won't age much during those 100 years.
Mechanics is just a mechanics, it isn't the main factor that makes the game more or less faithful to its predecessor. The Witcher 1 and The Witcher 3 have completely different mechanics and both are very coherent where it comes to the lore.
Please provide a quote that Sven said it is a *direct* sequel to BG2. As in that it will involve the same protagonists, characters, timeline etc. I watched many interviews and failed to notice such statement.
And this is a valid concern. If they don't plan a sequel, why bother capping the game at level 10? If they do plan a sequel it's risky to show all the good stuff and high level locations, like Underdark, in their first game. There is a reason why none of those were present in BG1.
And maybe I'm wrong, but judging from the way you can enter the Underdark I *think* it's purely optional location. What I'm more concerned is that Sven fought toe to toe with Hook Horror with just one 3rd level character. I don't remember hook horrors being that week, but maybe these have been nerfed in 5ed. What I fear, though, is Larian buffed party skills and abilities or nerfed the ones from enemies just to show more exciting, normally high level locations. That would be very bad.
Check the AMA from awhile back. I asked him if he considers BG3 a direct sequel and why. He asnwered that yes, it IS a direct sequel. But wouldn't say why. The questions and answers have their own thread here IIRC.
"To have it retain original BG series art style BG3 would have to be made in Infinity Engine. You do realize that was not an option from the beginning?"
No it wouldn't. It would just need to be isometric with a similar art style (style, not graphical quality). Any number of engines could do this. It doesn't, and shouldn't, be identical. But it should be a recognizable continuation and refinement of the previous titles.
"Mechanics is just a mechanics, it isn't the main factor that makes the game more or less faithful to its predecessor. The Witcher 1 and The Witcher 3 have completely different mechanics and both are very coherent where it comes to the lore."
Completely and utterly disagree. Mechanics are how one interacts with the game. Which has a MAJOR impact on how it feels to play. IMO, mechanics and game feel are more important than trying to copy the art style.
Also, the Witcher example isn't relevant. People have been making a false equivalence with cherry picked examples since the start of this section of the forums. The Witcher (and Dragon Age, which people pointed to first) changed things up with EVERY ISNTALLMENT. Each game was significantly different, so there were zero expectations that they were going to be the same. Baldur's Gate kept the same mechanics and style, while improving on it for each iteration. This comes with certain expectations. Larian is breaking a 15 year pattern for no real discernable reason other than, "Baldur's Gate's play style doesn't work anymore." Which is complete bull.