The first thing I noticed was that you apparently have to play a pre-made character instead of creating your own. That's a total deal-breaker for me.
Then, the pre-made character he selected was a vampire spawn. All RPG "edgelord" type material makes me cringe and roll my eyes. Another deal-breaker if all the characters are edgelords.
I couldn't get past the tutorial area in D:OS 2 because I hated all the companions except maybe the dwarf. I also didn't like that they had no class identities - I was going to have to decide as the player how to build every one of them, and it looked like every one of them could be any class. Everyone was "special", so no one was.
Larian's version of BG is going to be a very hard sell for me. I'm not sure yet whether I'll buy it before it's years old and discounted, if then. I'm waiting now to see what the final release will look like.
I can't say I'm "disappointed" or anything like that. The preview looked exactly like what I was expecting. Another Divinity game. So I guess I'd be excited if I liked Divinity games, but sadly, I don't.
The sad part is I'm not even sure this was needed. They could have just made D:OS3. The 2nd one was well received, wasn't it?
I think what we're going to ultimately end up with is BG3 being the launchpad for D&D Campaign and Adventure settings for video games. I don't see any reason why there couldn't be a Baldur's Gate: Descent into Avernus "the video game!" using the DOS framework. And over time, with more and more campaigns and engine evolutions, the DOS engine isn't even associated with DOS as much. Kind of like how the Infinity Engine became synonymous with a whole group of games, not just BG.
Right now, I feel like this is a very cheap bait and switch from WotC. As I've alluded to, I don't blame the devs. They are working with an expanding what they do really well. More of a false advertising/branding issue than anything else. And I could easily change my mind on this depending on how it unfolds. I'm not holding my breath though.
The turn-based system might function a little differently in D:OS, but it's even MORE different from the original BG system. The pause-based pseudo turn system of BG has always been one of the biggest draws for the game for me personally, and I really do not like fully turn-based games like D:OS or XCom. Dragon Age is much more of a spiritual successor to BG to me than D:OS, and I'm very disappointed to see this departing from the original BG formula like this.
But who knows, actual D&D is hard turn-based after all so maybe the D&D purists prefer it that way.
The first thing I noticed was that you apparently have to play a pre-made character instead of creating your own. That's a total deal-breaker for me.
Then, the pre-made character he selected was a vampire spawn. All RPG "edgelord" type material makes me cringe and roll my eyes. Another deal-breaker if all the characters are edgelords.
I can't say I'm "disappointed" or anything like that. The preview looked exactly like what I was expecting. Another Divinity game. So I guess I'd be excited if I liked Divinity games, but sadly, I don't.
They already addressed that issue in an interview. You can use an origin character or made a custom one, like in previous game. Baldur’s Gate 3 will let players enjoy significantly more meaningful, nuanced stories using custom characters than they could in Divinity 2, this according to Larian Studios senior writer Adam Smith.
The first thing I noticed was that you apparently have to play a pre-made character instead of creating your own. That's a total deal-breaker for me.
Then, the pre-made character he selected was a vampire spawn. All RPG "edgelord" type material makes me cringe and roll my eyes. Another deal-breaker if all the characters are edgelords.
I can't say I'm "disappointed" or anything like that. The preview looked exactly like what I was expecting. Another Divinity game. So I guess I'd be excited if I liked Divinity games, but sadly, I don't.
They already addressed that issue in an interview. You can use an origin character or made a custom one, like in previous game. Baldur’s Gate 3 will let players enjoy significantly more meaningful, nuanced stories using custom characters than they could in Divinity 2, this according to Larian Studios senior writer Adam Smith.
I think there is an elf, human and githyanki characters in the gameplay. Sven also showed half-elf, elf, dwarf, etc in the character creation.
and just to follow up: The companions are actually locked into their class. Which is maybe good and maybe bad - but it's the total opposite of lacking a class identity.
I'll agree @BelgarathMTH that the vampire spawn thing is campy - but then again, a moderately insane ranger that spoke to a hamster falls squarely into the "camp" category as well. So if I can live with that, I think I can live with this.
I'm thinking more and more now why this needed to be Baldur's Gate. They could have just done their own thing like Sword Coast Legends did. This is too far removed from what BG stands for. This is Divinity in a D&D skin.
The Marvel superhero jumps are getting really annoying for me. In D&D the rules of physics apply and characters TAKE DAMAGE from falls and can't jump surreal distances. Those jumps need to go no matter how "fun" they are. Even if there is magic & fantasy, the setting needs to be grounded in realism like D&D is.
Arranging boxes into a stairway or any other tetris style puzzle thing *can* be fun, but I don't want that in a BG title. I just want a gripping story and D&D combat where death can be a real consequence.
This game really now looks like someone's personal preference more than what the legacy of Baldur's Gate is.
Something that kept nagging at me when watching the gameplay... why does the halfling have those giant, dumbo-like elven ears? Last time I saw pics of later DnD edition halflings they were still equipped with human ears?
Do you find this jumping in game super stupid and ridiculous? Who can jump like that? I understand that this is game but why use swords when you have such force in your legs? The most stupid thing I see in game in a while. Is that common in DnD that everyone have 3m vertical jump?
Arranging boxes into a stairway or any other tetris style puzzle thing *can* be fun, but I don't want that in a BG title. I just want a gripping story and D&D combat where death can be a real consequence.
Hmm... all the riddles in BG1 and 2. The ritual puzzles like in the Watcher's Keep or the shadow dungeon. Placing a series of items in the correct containers based on a set of written clues. The puzzles to get the talking sword in the sewers. The various puzzles in Durlag's Tower.
@jjstraka34 "3.) Larian earned the right to make this game by winning the recent "battle" of retro RPGs. Their Divinity: Orginal Sin games were more successful and flat-out better than Obsidian's and inExile's."
I'll accept "more successful" but they were NOT "better". The PoE series and Tyranny were some of the best RPGS I've ever played. And I've played a LOT of RPGS.
Looks like all us naysayers have been right from the very beginning. This is not BG3 by any stretch of the imagination. The title is just a cynical appeal to nostalgia for a game Larian isn't even making. Its an insult to fans of the BG series.
Arranging boxes into a stairway or any other tetris style puzzle thing *can* be fun, but I don't want that in a BG title. I just want a gripping story and D&D combat where death can be a real consequence.
Hmm... all the riddles in BG1 and 2. The ritual puzzles like in the Watcher's Keep or the shadow dungeon. Placing a series of items in the correct containers based on a set of written clues. The puzzles to get the talking sword in the sewers. The various puzzles in Durlag's Tower.
Tetris refers to how you interact with the environment. Environment mini game where characters throw big crates or whatever around effortlessly "because it's fun creative gameplay". I'm not arguing it can be fun but it looks distracting in a serious RPG.
IE games didn't need that, Pillars didn't need that, Pathfinder didn't need that.
Arranging boxes into a stairway or any other tetris style puzzle thing *can* be fun, but I don't want that in a BG title. I just want a gripping story and D&D combat where death can be a real consequence.
Hmm... all the riddles in BG1 and 2. The ritual puzzles like in the Watcher's Keep or the shadow dungeon. Placing a series of items in the correct containers based on a set of written clues. The puzzles to get the talking sword in the sewers. The various puzzles in Durlag's Tower.
Tetris refers to how you interact with the environment. Environment mini game where characters throw big crates or whatever around effortlessly "because it's fun creative gameplay". I'm not arguing it can be fun but it looks distracting in a serious RPG.
IE games didn't need that, Pillars didn't need that, Pathfinder didn't need that.
Pillars had very few puzzles, and frankly, could have used some
@jjstraka34 "3.) Larian earned the right to make this game by winning the recent "battle" of retro RPGs. Their Divinity: Orginal Sin games were more successful and flat-out better than Obsidian's and inExile's."
I'll accept "more successful" but they were NOT "better". The PoE series and Tyranny were some of the best RPGS I've ever played. And I've played a LOT of RPGS.
Looks like all us naysayers have been right from the very beginning. This is not BG3 by any stretch of the imagination. The title is just a cynical appeal to nostalgia for a game Larian isn't even making. Its an insult to fans of the BG series.
I guess I understand why people feel that way, but I feel like I'm watching to video-game version of the uproar over the new Star Wars trilogy. And I still think Pillars was more of a direct appeal to nostalgia than this, even with the name involved. There hasn't be a truly successful D&D video game since the Neverwinter Nights series, unless you count free-to-play junk MMOs. They weren't going to make Pools of Radiance 2. Neverwinter's name is already on the MMO. They went with the title with the most prestige. They went with the developer they feel has their thumb on the largest amount of players in the current market. No, it is certainly not a traditional Baldur's Gate game. But we're operating under the idea that Baldur's Gate means "2nd Edition, RTwP, Bhaalspawn Saga". To Wizards of the Coast, it simply means "pretige D&D title". Baldur's Gate was a city in the first game. But it's more than that. Baldur's Gate the title is itself monolithic. It transcends what originally was. It SOUNDS important, foreboding, mysterious. Many people who play the new game will have no idea what Baldur's Gate actually is in the realm of Faerun. It's a stamp that says "this is our heavyweight D&D title".
@jjstraka34 "And I still think Pillars was more of a direct appeal to nostalgia than this, even with the name involved."
PoE actually carried the spirit of the games it was paying homage to though. It makes sense that it appealed to nostalgia, since its look and feel was VERY BG. PoE1 has a better claim to "BG3" than anything ever made by Larian.
Looks like all us naysayers have been right from the very beginning. This is not BG3 by any stretch of the imagination. The title is just a cynical appeal to nostalgia for a game Larian isn't even making. Its an insult to fans of the BG series.
Citation needed.
The whole leap thing seems like making a mountain out of a molehill. The BG franchise is notorious for giving the player things that werent supposed to be possible: See the innate bhallspawn powers. See the avatar of Bhaal ability.
The jump's just a mechanic. Like those mechanics. You can like or not, but suggesting that this is anything but Larian taking inspiration for BG1 and 2 is disingenuous.
We should also never confuse BG for a faithful interpretation of D&D. Ever. For example, Elves can be brought back by raise dead in BG1 and 2. The monk, barbarian sorceror and HLAs were grafted onto the series.
Looks like all us naysayers have been right from the very beginning. This is not BG3 by any stretch of the imagination. The title is just a cynical appeal to nostalgia for a game Larian isn't even making. Its an insult to fans of the BG series.
Citation needed.
The whole leap thing seems like making a mountain out of a molehill. The BG franchise is notorious for giving the player things that werent supposed to be possible: See the innate bhallspawn powers. See the avatar of Bhaal ability.
The jump's just a mechanic. Like those mechanics. You can like or not, but suggesting that this is anything but Larian taking inspiration for BG1 and 2 is disingenuous.
We should also never confuse BG for a faithful interpretation of D&D. Ever. For example, Elves can be brought back by raise dead in BG1 and 2. The monk, barbarian sorceror and HLAs were grafted onto the series.
Also, I think it's pretty obvious Bioware or whoever would have been upping interactivity if the series had continued. There were alot more interactive parts of the game in ToB and IWD. Obviously the next step would have been adding things like moving barrels instead of just being able to open them.
The use of environmental, elemental, weather and objects in combat in D:OS is pretty much revolutionary as far as CRPGs go. It's the kind of thing you could previously only achieve in tabletop sessions. The world itself is designed to be manipulated in creative ways.
The character looks light skinned and ghoulish because he is a vampire.
I felt that way about more than one character. And I'm pretty sure based on their other games that they'll all look that way. That's their style for light skin.
Pretty much. From TB combat, to companion origin stories as prologue, to environmental interactions, to fully voiced dialogues, to a max party size of 4, and even the way visuals are presented to the player: it is by all accounts Divinity: Original Sin 3 set in the Forgotten Realms.
This exactly. I had resolved to myself that as much as I consider TB combat to horrible garbage if everything else about this game was awesome and only the TB combat was a strike against it I would give it a shot. But now I see that literally everything about the game is crap for me. I'll add to the above list the cartoony horrible D:OS look of the graphics, the weak character creation freedom, the lame companions that you cannot fully shape to your liking, and the very silly dialog system (which far from being a "cool" reflection of TT gaming is instead a lame attempt to create a TT simulator rather than a videogame).
Ok, finally just finished watching this and reading all the comments here and I have thoughts:
The first thing is this isn't Baldur's Gate. With the gameplay that was shown, I cannot see why this title was used. Why is this important? Well the first person who asked a question during the video answered that. He said:
"I've neve played baldur's gate before, but after seeing that... I really really, really want to now." This is reverse of what someone like @Thacobell or I feel. This guy is going be going into the first two Baldur's Gates and being disappointed because it will be nothing like he expected.
The game mechanics shown here are going to tarnish the first two games appeal for new players like him and you have to ask yourself, why does this game need to be called Baldur's Gate 3?
Larian already has enough love and admiration in the gaming community that they could have called this game anything else and it'd still have the exact same hype, if not more.
The actual starting of the campaign story is amazing. It gives the player urgency but also curiosity of the actual power this creature now in your brain is giving you. I was hooked as soon as I realized that this is what the story is. But it isn't Baldur's Gate. It has the potential to be better, but the comparison to the original is now ingrained into everyone.
The game play reminded me of Temple of Elemental Evil and maybe resurrecting that name (although that has it's problems as well since it campaign setting was Greyhawk) would have been more appropriate and fitting. Wizard of the Coast made a mistake naming the game Baldur's Gate IMO.
~
That said, it is what it is. A name is just a name, rose by any other name and all that crap: Lets dive into what was actually shown and said:
Early Access
Yes, please take my money for an unfinished product. Or you know, finish the damn game first and then release it. You are not a struggling indie studio needing the money and the 'feedback' from fans.
As much as the story is compelling to me, it isn't compelling enough to dish out full price for an unfinished game. Actually, I don't think there was enough shown to dish out money on a completed full price game.
Actually Playing the Game
Kudos to actually playing the game instead of using a video of playing the game. I appreciate the candidness of it and showing not just what works, but what doesn't work to give a sense of how far along this game actually is. The bug at the end made me smile.
Soundtrack
The soundtrack had a BG feel to it, which was nice.
Opening Cut Scene
Minute, fifty; good length. I noted when first watching it that it shows the player being infected with the tadpole from the beginning, making the PC 'special' and that I wanted to be shown how I was captured. The next cutscene (after character creation) actually shows this though. So I am actually fine with it. The cutscene art style is very appealing.
Character Creation
Obviously not finished. But getting to play as a Githyanki is surprisingly pleasant. All the other races are in Players Handbook so they are expected. I am assuming that Dragonborn and Gnome are coming as well, they just don't have the art done for them yet.
The six early access classes (wizard, cleric, fighter, ranger, rogue, and warlock) are meh and unappealing to me. Basic flair, but that is because I like playing Bards and Paladins. Obviously they should be coming.
What I kinda want to know is for Clerics if you are given a wide variety of deities to choose from. This is something I need when role playing a character. I don't want to be shoehorned into the generic 8-10 human deities and that is it.
Background showed: Charlatan, Criminal, Entertainer, Folk Hero and Noble. All in alphabetical order. I wonder if more are going to be added and what role they are going to play in the game.
You assign ability points. Horrible. I am a fan of the 8,10,12,13,14,16 system. it's a nice balance between min maxing, role playing, power gaming and balance. Balance (as this game has a lot of multiplayer potential) is important. The set stats also give race (which give bonuses to abilities) more purpose and flair.
Origin Stories
Yuck. It's D&D. I, me, myself, want to create a character and bring it into this world. It does look like these origin characters are going to be NPCs as well which is fine. Vampire Spawn is yuck again; HOWEVER, as Sven was playing it, I do see the appeal of having this type of character going through ceremorphosis. Not enough to actually want to play one though.
As the game play continued, I wondered how much these origin stories are going to change the game. Such as resting in camp and the vampire spawn reflecting on what he is going through. Is my generic character going to have the same type of unique reflection with the character creation choices I made? @PsicoVic provided an article about this concern but I'd rather see it than just take a developers word for it.
Second Cut Scene
Dragon riders. HUGE turn off. How much high level stupidity is going to be in this game?
Sven said the city shown in the intro wasn't Baldur's Gate. The cutscene played long IMO at 3 minutes and 20 seconds. I could have lived without all the 'epicness' that was happening. Like, I am still reeling about dragon riders and being chased through different dimensions. I am kinda ok with the different dimensions portalling however, as that allows the player to create any type of character they want and stick it into the Forgotten Realms setting. Think Planar Sphere quest from BG2 but the popping in and out and the tentacles from the ship automatically teleporting its victims inside was a little too much for me. Explains how the player gets caught, but still a little too much.
Actual Gameplay
I am not a fan of the environmental art atm. I don't know if that is due to it being uncomplete but it contrasts horribly with the cutscene rendering.
Wasn't a fan of the actual voice acting dialog writing. I don't know if that was the actual writing or the voice acting delivery, but all three characters seem to be missing 'something.' Personality? But I kinda got the two NPCs personality. Maybe the actual dialog was too much of hand holding. I donno. I can't put my finger on it, but I wasn't a fan of the actual characters.
I do like that there is no stupid dialog wheel and that the PC is actually silent during them. This will allow more unique choices based on the character that is being role played through out the campaign, however, once again, I really hope this is carried over to the characters I personally make.
I am also intrigued by what that scene would be like if I chose Shadowheart as my origin story. Would another NPC be banging at the door? How much gameplay is changed while doing these origin stories? Sven mentioned near the end of it that there a lot of secrets that you won't find in one playthrough. Are some of these secrets tied to the Origin stories? If I have said character in my party when these secrets are about to appear will I experience them?
I will mention this now though, even though it happened later in the playthrough: The NPC shouldn't be silent background scenery during other interactions. Like Baldur's Gate 2 - this games namesake - addressed this 20 years ago. It is unacceptable in an RPG now.
Combat
Turn Based. Ok fine. What do you have?
Percentage instead of die roll? Horrible. Percentages as the game revealed can be misleading. 90% should be a hit but just saying -you missed!- leaves me atleast with a frustration. How did I miss? Oh the die roll said I rolled a 2. OK I missed. Showing these rolls are part of the D&D experience in my opinion.
edit: I forgot to talk about another thing that annoyed me: how the turns actually work. Your turn/enemy turn is annoying. I only like it in XCOM. If you are going to do turn base. Make it as organic as possible. Have initiative (that's still a D&D mechanic is it not) or better yet, choose your actions for the turn, hit end and watch it play out at the same time as what the AI determined it was going to do in those 6 seconds.
I do not like the UI task bar. It is very cluttered and unappealing. Playing through this game the first time, I know I am going to be having to hover over each and every one of those boxes to determine what the hell it does.
Throw anything (boots in the video) is very D&D however, kudos.
Critical miss means that there are 1s in the game. So his two misses with his weapon resulted in two rolls of 2 and one roll of 1. After he reloaded and showed how this encounter should be played (I'll get to that shortly), I do think this was actually scripted to act this way.
I will also say fighting intellect devours this early seems like a waste of an amazing plotline. Devourers have the ability "body thief" that lures unsuspecting people into traps. This would have been a great storyline as I assume the mindflayers are going to want their children back. Here, they are just appearing as generic early monsters. It seems like a huge waste.
Combat take 2
OK, dipping the bow into the fire to make it glow, while sneaking, is dumb. I can see taking an action to light a single arrow on fire before firing it being ok and a cool mechanic As it stands now - no. That bow, unless magical (and that in itself would be a cause for concern) show now be kindling.
How does the character know that the item is explosive? Was it part of his skill set? We see the cleric finding a hidden cache using a skill. Do these skills happen in combat now, or as shown, is the terrain going to be littered with this type of crap during every encounter?
The skeleton encounter annoyed me. Usually this always annoys me with undead just lying on the ground and as a player, you are aware that it's a trap. Instead of taking the weapons away, why not just take the femur bones so they can't walk? Some games consider this a cheat and cheat back by waking up all the skeletons because you "attacked" one. which is fine as it allows the player to weigh risk/reward.
One of the questions related to luck and his response was straight out of the book numbers were unforgiving. What will be unforgiving to me is if they mess with those numbers. 'Straight out of the book numbers' should be a core rule setting. If Sven thinks its unmanageable because he needs to throw 3 intellect devourers, or 5 skeletons at the player to make every fight seem epic in turn base then that's his team's design problem. Not the mechanics.
Moving Objects
I wonder if Strength and Constitution are going to play a role in this mechanic. I also wonder if the parties total strength is going to play a role in this. I would prefer watching the characters pick up the items and drag them around, however, I am aware that maybe resource heavy, but if you're going to do it, do it right.
Sneaking
The mechanic for sneaking was pretty cool. I could do without the red outline however, or tie it to a skill like perception.
Conclusion
I am still intrigued about this game as there are somethings that I like, mainly the central plot, however, there is a lot of red flags popping up. My expectations for this game are already low as I know it will not be like the Baldur's Gate Trilogy and I have pulled myself away from that mindset.
I am still in wait and see mode. I know I won't take part in the early access though and I will probably wait for initial reviews that do not come from Larian (or Baldur Gate) fanboys to determine when I will actually pick the game up and how much I will pay for it. As it stands, full price also seems out of the question.
The game play reminded me of Temple of Elemental Evil and maybe resurrecting that name (although that has it's problems as well since it campaign setting was Greyhawk) would have been more appropriate and fitting. Wizard of the Coast made a mistake naming the game Baldur's Gate IMO.
It may have been more fitting, but ToEE had so many issues it took an underground community to keep it going. Greyhawk isn't the only thing problematic with that statement. It has a small following, it left a bad taste in many player's mouths, and those who would be interested in it would be expecting the game to be Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil. I have my doubts Larian would want to be tied down that much by source material since they've done whatever they pleased with Baldur's Gate, something they could get away with easier. With Baldur's Gate they can have their cake (nostalgia) and eat it too (artistic freedom). Purists just end up by the wayside, but they don't need the purists to make a successfully selling game when there's enough people who don't care or like other Larian games. They can even get away with the audacious statement that this is the first return to Baldur's Gate in 20 years smh.
@jjstraka34 "3.) Larian earned the right to make this game by winning the recent "battle" of retro RPGs. Their Divinity: Orginal Sin games were more successful and flat-out better than Obsidian's and inExile's."
I'll accept "more successful" but they were NOT "better". The PoE series and Tyranny were some of the best RPGS I've ever played. And I've played a LOT of RPGS.
Looks like all us naysayers have been right from the very beginning. This is not BG3 by any stretch of the imagination. The title is just a cynical appeal to nostalgia for a game Larian isn't even making. Its an insult to fans of the BG series.
I guess I understand why people feel that way, ... Baldur's Gate was a city in the first game. But it's more than that. Baldur's Gate the title is itself monolithic. It transcends what originally was. It SOUNDS important, foreboding, mysterious. Many people who play the new game will have no idea what Baldur's Gate actually is in the realm of Faerun. It's a stamp that says "this is our heavyweight D&D title".
@jjstraka34 , you've touched here on something that's been bothering me a little. Over on the Reddit, for months before this preview came out, there's been a constant barrage of topics that ask basically, "I'm hyped for Baldur's Gate 3, so should I play (or they make a statement that 'I want to play...') Baldur's Gate 1 and 2 to get ready?"
I've never answered one of those topics, because they make me roll my eyes, and they cause a little bile to rise in my throat. That emotional reaction of mine is enough to tell me that I have nothing productive or helpful that I could say to those people, and I would be likely to lose my cool and toss my cookies if I tried. So I bite my tongue and stay silent.
What I really am tempted to say with some emotion is that "NO, you have no need to play the original Baldur's Gate series if what you're really interested in is the so-called "Baldur's Gate 3", (and it gives me a gut-level negative emotional reaction to call it that), because this new game has NOTHING to do with the original that so many older people love."
I might have said this before at some point, I probably have, I forget...
But after watching Sven demo BG3 I realized that I’m actually very pleased that the game is turn based. Why? Because my style of gameplay with BG 1 & 2 is to pause and micromanage the sh*t out of combat! I actually need a game that manages this tendency of mine in an arguably better anyway.
I didn’t really get into D:OS (2) because it just didn’t grab me the same as the BG series did in terms of setting, ambience, and characters. But I actually did enjoy the gameplay quite a lot. So now that is melded with the BG mythos. And it looks like story and range of role playing choices promises to be excellent in BG3.
@jjstraka34 "And I still think Pillars was more of a direct appeal to nostalgia than this, even with the name involved."
PoE actually carried the spirit of the games it was paying homage to though. It makes sense that it appealed to nostalgia, since its look and feel was VERY BG. PoE1 has a better claim to "BG3" than anything ever made by Larian.
yeah despite my issues with pillars writing wise it does contain alot of he spirit of bg.
Uhm, to be fair the name Baldur´s gate is the name of a city in a setting of the game D&D created by Wizards of the Coast, a tabletop game created in 1974, with 40 years of story, not only the name of two games.
And they let Larian get the license to create a game after refusing several game studios all over the years, so they have all the right to call the game Baldur´s Gate 3 or whatever they want.
Sven Vincke, Mike Myers and Adam Smith were really forthright since the first interview, months ago, stating that they want to make a D&D5e game, using an improved version of the game engine of DOS; not based in the first games. Sven didn´t even know the endings of the first game when they asked him in an interview; so I wasn´t surprised about the gameplay. What I found puzzling is that so many people are flabbergasted about the fact that they are not going to use the story nor the mechanics of the (incredible) first games.
It was never meant to be. They told us that from the start.
Just saw the PAX gameplay stuff. I haven't really paid any attention to speculation or wild theories before, but it does seem to confirm a lot of it.
So Baldur's Sin 3 huh. I actually think it looks like it'll be fun but they could just as easily have made Original Sin 3 where they can do anything they like with the systems and lore and... well everything, since they own that IP. I'm disappointed it's TB rather than RTwP. Not a fan of the 4 man party thing either, that just reeks "we want to put this on console" which, for some reason, is still stuck in "4 players are the max ever" mentality.
Yay for what will probably be another great CRPG, boo for not getting separate D:OS3 and BG3s.
i would not say the 4 party size is a console thing. thats been the default size in larian's games since dos 1.
True, and neither of those games were made for console in the first place either. I'm being cynical about it, I can admit that, but if they wanted it to be Baldur's Gatey, they would've gone for 6 character party instead of relying on what they know; which is 4 that their engine supports and will be easy to adapt for consoles' odd limitation.
Comments
Then, the pre-made character he selected was a vampire spawn. All RPG "edgelord" type material makes me cringe and roll my eyes. Another deal-breaker if all the characters are edgelords.
I couldn't get past the tutorial area in D:OS 2 because I hated all the companions except maybe the dwarf. I also didn't like that they had no class identities - I was going to have to decide as the player how to build every one of them, and it looked like every one of them could be any class. Everyone was "special", so no one was.
Larian's version of BG is going to be a very hard sell for me. I'm not sure yet whether I'll buy it before it's years old and discounted, if then. I'm waiting now to see what the final release will look like.
I can't say I'm "disappointed" or anything like that. The preview looked exactly like what I was expecting. Another Divinity game. So I guess I'd be excited if I liked Divinity games, but sadly, I don't.
I think what we're going to ultimately end up with is BG3 being the launchpad for D&D Campaign and Adventure settings for video games. I don't see any reason why there couldn't be a Baldur's Gate: Descent into Avernus "the video game!" using the DOS framework. And over time, with more and more campaigns and engine evolutions, the DOS engine isn't even associated with DOS as much. Kind of like how the Infinity Engine became synonymous with a whole group of games, not just BG.
Right now, I feel like this is a very cheap bait and switch from WotC. As I've alluded to, I don't blame the devs. They are working with an expanding what they do really well. More of a false advertising/branding issue than anything else. And I could easily change my mind on this depending on how it unfolds. I'm not holding my breath though.
But who knows, actual D&D is hard turn-based after all so maybe the D&D purists prefer it that way.
They already addressed that issue in an interview. You can use an origin character or made a custom one, like in previous game. Baldur’s Gate 3 will let players enjoy significantly more meaningful, nuanced stories using custom characters than they could in Divinity 2, this according to Larian Studios senior writer Adam Smith.
https://www.trustedreviews.com/news/baldurs-gate-3-will-fix-one-of-divinity-2s-biggest-flaws-3985098
I think there is an elf, human and githyanki characters in the gameplay. Sven also showed half-elf, elf, dwarf, etc in the character creation.
and just to follow up: The companions are actually locked into their class. Which is maybe good and maybe bad - but it's the total opposite of lacking a class identity.
I'll agree @BelgarathMTH that the vampire spawn thing is campy - but then again, a moderately insane ranger that spoke to a hamster falls squarely into the "camp" category as well. So if I can live with that, I think I can live with this.
The Marvel superhero jumps are getting really annoying for me. In D&D the rules of physics apply and characters TAKE DAMAGE from falls and can't jump surreal distances. Those jumps need to go no matter how "fun" they are. Even if there is magic & fantasy, the setting needs to be grounded in realism like D&D is.
Arranging boxes into a stairway or any other tetris style puzzle thing *can* be fun, but I don't want that in a BG title. I just want a gripping story and D&D combat where death can be a real consequence.
This game really now looks like someone's personal preference more than what the legacy of Baldur's Gate is.
Hmm... all the riddles in BG1 and 2. The ritual puzzles like in the Watcher's Keep or the shadow dungeon. Placing a series of items in the correct containers based on a set of written clues. The puzzles to get the talking sword in the sewers. The various puzzles in Durlag's Tower.
I'll accept "more successful" but they were NOT "better". The PoE series and Tyranny were some of the best RPGS I've ever played. And I've played a LOT of RPGS.
Looks like all us naysayers have been right from the very beginning. This is not BG3 by any stretch of the imagination. The title is just a cynical appeal to nostalgia for a game Larian isn't even making. Its an insult to fans of the BG series.
Tetris refers to how you interact with the environment. Environment mini game where characters throw big crates or whatever around effortlessly "because it's fun creative gameplay". I'm not arguing it can be fun but it looks distracting in a serious RPG.
IE games didn't need that, Pillars didn't need that, Pathfinder didn't need that.
Pillars had very few puzzles, and frankly, could have used some
I guess I understand why people feel that way, but I feel like I'm watching to video-game version of the uproar over the new Star Wars trilogy. And I still think Pillars was more of a direct appeal to nostalgia than this, even with the name involved. There hasn't be a truly successful D&D video game since the Neverwinter Nights series, unless you count free-to-play junk MMOs. They weren't going to make Pools of Radiance 2. Neverwinter's name is already on the MMO. They went with the title with the most prestige. They went with the developer they feel has their thumb on the largest amount of players in the current market. No, it is certainly not a traditional Baldur's Gate game. But we're operating under the idea that Baldur's Gate means "2nd Edition, RTwP, Bhaalspawn Saga". To Wizards of the Coast, it simply means "pretige D&D title". Baldur's Gate was a city in the first game. But it's more than that. Baldur's Gate the title is itself monolithic. It transcends what originally was. It SOUNDS important, foreboding, mysterious. Many people who play the new game will have no idea what Baldur's Gate actually is in the realm of Faerun. It's a stamp that says "this is our heavyweight D&D title".
PoE actually carried the spirit of the games it was paying homage to though. It makes sense that it appealed to nostalgia, since its look and feel was VERY BG. PoE1 has a better claim to "BG3" than anything ever made by Larian.
Now the question is whether I play through all of BG again first or if I play through all of DOS first (ideally both before this comes out)
Citation needed.
The whole leap thing seems like making a mountain out of a molehill. The BG franchise is notorious for giving the player things that werent supposed to be possible: See the innate bhallspawn powers. See the avatar of Bhaal ability.
The jump's just a mechanic. Like those mechanics. You can like or not, but suggesting that this is anything but Larian taking inspiration for BG1 and 2 is disingenuous.
We should also never confuse BG for a faithful interpretation of D&D. Ever. For example, Elves can be brought back by raise dead in BG1 and 2. The monk, barbarian sorceror and HLAs were grafted onto the series.
Also, I think it's pretty obvious Bioware or whoever would have been upping interactivity if the series had continued. There were alot more interactive parts of the game in ToB and IWD. Obviously the next step would have been adding things like moving barrels instead of just being able to open them.
I felt that way about more than one character. And I'm pretty sure based on their other games that they'll all look that way. That's their style for light skin.
The first thing is this isn't Baldur's Gate. With the gameplay that was shown, I cannot see why this title was used. Why is this important? Well the first person who asked a question during the video answered that. He said:
"I've neve played baldur's gate before, but after seeing that... I really really, really want to now." This is reverse of what someone like @Thacobell or I feel. This guy is going be going into the first two Baldur's Gates and being disappointed because it will be nothing like he expected.
The game mechanics shown here are going to tarnish the first two games appeal for new players like him and you have to ask yourself, why does this game need to be called Baldur's Gate 3?
Larian already has enough love and admiration in the gaming community that they could have called this game anything else and it'd still have the exact same hype, if not more.
The actual starting of the campaign story is amazing. It gives the player urgency but also curiosity of the actual power this creature now in your brain is giving you. I was hooked as soon as I realized that this is what the story is. But it isn't Baldur's Gate. It has the potential to be better, but the comparison to the original is now ingrained into everyone.
The game play reminded me of Temple of Elemental Evil and maybe resurrecting that name (although that has it's problems as well since it campaign setting was Greyhawk) would have been more appropriate and fitting. Wizard of the Coast made a mistake naming the game Baldur's Gate IMO.
~
That said, it is what it is. A name is just a name, rose by any other name and all that crap: Lets dive into what was actually shown and said:
Early Access
Yes, please take my money for an unfinished product.
As much as the story is compelling to me, it isn't compelling enough to dish out full price for an unfinished game. Actually, I don't think there was enough shown to dish out money on a completed full price game.
Actually Playing the Game
Kudos to actually playing the game instead of using a video of playing the game. I appreciate the candidness of it and showing not just what works, but what doesn't work to give a sense of how far along this game actually is. The bug at the end made me smile.
Soundtrack
The soundtrack had a BG feel to it, which was nice.
Opening Cut Scene
Minute, fifty; good length. I noted when first watching it that it shows the player being infected with the tadpole from the beginning, making the PC 'special' and that I wanted to be shown how I was captured. The next cutscene (after character creation) actually shows this though. So I am actually fine with it. The cutscene art style is very appealing.
Character Creation
Obviously not finished. But getting to play as a Githyanki is surprisingly pleasant. All the other races are in Players Handbook so they are expected. I am assuming that Dragonborn and Gnome are coming as well, they just don't have the art done for them yet.
The six early access classes (wizard, cleric, fighter, ranger, rogue, and warlock) are meh and unappealing to me. Basic flair, but that is because I like playing Bards and Paladins. Obviously they should be coming.
What I kinda want to know is for Clerics if you are given a wide variety of deities to choose from. This is something I need when role playing a character. I don't want to be shoehorned into the generic 8-10 human deities and that is it.
Background showed: Charlatan, Criminal, Entertainer, Folk Hero and Noble. All in alphabetical order. I wonder if more are going to be added and what role they are going to play in the game.
You assign ability points. Horrible. I am a fan of the 8,10,12,13,14,16 system. it's a nice balance between min maxing, role playing, power gaming and balance. Balance (as this game has a lot of multiplayer potential) is important. The set stats also give race (which give bonuses to abilities) more purpose and flair.
Origin Stories
Yuck. It's D&D. I, me, myself, want to create a character and bring it into this world. It does look like these origin characters are going to be NPCs as well which is fine. Vampire Spawn is yuck again; HOWEVER, as Sven was playing it, I do see the appeal of having this type of character going through ceremorphosis. Not enough to actually want to play one though.
As the game play continued, I wondered how much these origin stories are going to change the game. Such as resting in camp and the vampire spawn reflecting on what he is going through. Is my generic character going to have the same type of unique reflection with the character creation choices I made? @PsicoVic provided an article about this concern but I'd rather see it than just take a developers word for it.
Second Cut Scene
Dragon riders.
Sven said the city shown in the intro wasn't Baldur's Gate. The cutscene played long IMO at 3 minutes and 20 seconds. I could have lived without all the 'epicness' that was happening. Like, I am still reeling about dragon riders and being chased through different dimensions. I am kinda ok with the different dimensions portalling however, as that allows the player to create any type of character they want and stick it into the Forgotten Realms setting. Think Planar Sphere quest from BG2 but the popping in and out and the tentacles from the ship automatically teleporting its victims inside was a little too much for me. Explains how the player gets caught, but still a little too much.
Actual Gameplay
I am not a fan of the environmental art atm. I don't know if that is due to it being uncomplete but it contrasts horribly with the cutscene rendering.
Wasn't a fan of the actual voice acting dialog writing. I don't know if that was the actual writing or the voice acting delivery, but all three characters seem to be missing 'something.' Personality? But I kinda got the two NPCs personality. Maybe the actual dialog was too much of hand holding. I donno. I can't put my finger on it, but I wasn't a fan of the actual characters.
I do like that there is no stupid dialog wheel and that the PC is actually silent during them. This will allow more unique choices based on the character that is being role played through out the campaign, however, once again, I really hope this is carried over to the characters I personally make.
I am also intrigued by what that scene would be like if I chose Shadowheart as my origin story. Would another NPC be banging at the door? How much gameplay is changed while doing these origin stories? Sven mentioned near the end of it that there a lot of secrets that you won't find in one playthrough. Are some of these secrets tied to the Origin stories? If I have said character in my party when these secrets are about to appear will I experience them?
I will mention this now though, even though it happened later in the playthrough: The NPC shouldn't be silent background scenery during other interactions. Like Baldur's Gate 2 - this games namesake - addressed this 20 years ago. It is unacceptable in an RPG now.
Combat
Turn Based. Ok fine. What do you have?
Percentage instead of die roll? Horrible. Percentages as the game revealed can be misleading. 90% should be a hit but just saying -you missed!- leaves me atleast with a frustration. How did I miss? Oh the die roll said I rolled a 2. OK I missed. Showing these rolls are part of the D&D experience in my opinion.
edit: I forgot to talk about another thing that annoyed me: how the turns actually work. Your turn/enemy turn is annoying. I only like it in XCOM. If you are going to do turn base. Make it as organic as possible. Have initiative (that's still a D&D mechanic is it not) or better yet, choose your actions for the turn, hit end and watch it play out at the same time as what the AI determined it was going to do in those 6 seconds.
I do not like the UI task bar. It is very cluttered and unappealing. Playing through this game the first time, I know I am going to be having to hover over each and every one of those boxes to determine what the hell it does.
Throw anything (boots in the video) is very D&D however, kudos.
Critical miss means that there are 1s in the game. So his two misses with his weapon resulted in two rolls of 2 and one roll of 1. After he reloaded and showed how this encounter should be played (I'll get to that shortly), I do think this was actually scripted to act this way.
I will also say fighting intellect devours this early seems like a waste of an amazing plotline. Devourers have the ability "body thief" that lures unsuspecting people into traps. This would have been a great storyline as I assume the mindflayers are going to want their children back. Here, they are just appearing as generic early monsters. It seems like a huge waste.
Combat take 2
OK, dipping the bow into the fire to make it glow, while sneaking, is dumb. I can see taking an action to light a single arrow on fire before firing it being ok and a cool mechanic As it stands now - no. That bow, unless magical (and that in itself would be a cause for concern) show now be kindling.
How does the character know that the item is explosive? Was it part of his skill set? We see the cleric finding a hidden cache using a skill. Do these skills happen in combat now, or as shown, is the terrain going to be littered with this type of crap during every encounter?
The skeleton encounter annoyed me. Usually this always annoys me with undead just lying on the ground and as a player, you are aware that it's a trap. Instead of taking the weapons away, why not just take the femur bones so they can't walk? Some games consider this a cheat and cheat back by waking up all the skeletons because you "attacked" one. which is fine as it allows the player to weigh risk/reward.
One of the questions related to luck and his response was straight out of the book numbers were unforgiving. What will be unforgiving to me is if they mess with those numbers. 'Straight out of the book numbers' should be a core rule setting. If Sven thinks its unmanageable because he needs to throw 3 intellect devourers, or 5 skeletons at the player to make every fight seem epic in turn base then that's his team's design problem. Not the mechanics.
Moving Objects
I wonder if Strength and Constitution are going to play a role in this mechanic. I also wonder if the parties total strength is going to play a role in this. I would prefer watching the characters pick up the items and drag them around, however, I am aware that maybe resource heavy, but if you're going to do it, do it right.
Sneaking
The mechanic for sneaking was pretty cool. I could do without the red outline however, or tie it to a skill like perception.
Conclusion
I am still intrigued about this game as there are somethings that I like, mainly the central plot, however, there is a lot of red flags popping up. My expectations for this game are already low as I know it will not be like the Baldur's Gate Trilogy and I have pulled myself away from that mindset.
I am still in wait and see mode. I know I won't take part in the early access though and I will probably wait for initial reviews that do not come from Larian (or Baldur Gate) fanboys to determine when I will actually pick the game up and how much I will pay for it. As it stands, full price also seems out of the question.
OK, long post over, thanks for reading.
It may have been more fitting, but ToEE had so many issues it took an underground community to keep it going. Greyhawk isn't the only thing problematic with that statement. It has a small following, it left a bad taste in many player's mouths, and those who would be interested in it would be expecting the game to be Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil. I have my doubts Larian would want to be tied down that much by source material since they've done whatever they pleased with Baldur's Gate, something they could get away with easier. With Baldur's Gate they can have their cake (nostalgia) and eat it too (artistic freedom). Purists just end up by the wayside, but they don't need the purists to make a successfully selling game when there's enough people who don't care or like other Larian games. They can even get away with the audacious statement that this is the first return to Baldur's Gate in 20 years smh.
@jjstraka34 , you've touched here on something that's been bothering me a little. Over on the Reddit, for months before this preview came out, there's been a constant barrage of topics that ask basically, "I'm hyped for Baldur's Gate 3, so should I play (or they make a statement that 'I want to play...') Baldur's Gate 1 and 2 to get ready?"
I've never answered one of those topics, because they make me roll my eyes, and they cause a little bile to rise in my throat. That emotional reaction of mine is enough to tell me that I have nothing productive or helpful that I could say to those people, and I would be likely to lose my cool and toss my cookies if I tried. So I bite my tongue and stay silent.
What I really am tempted to say with some emotion is that "NO, you have no need to play the original Baldur's Gate series if what you're really interested in is the so-called "Baldur's Gate 3", (and it gives me a gut-level negative emotional reaction to call it that), because this new game has NOTHING to do with the original that so many older people love."
Grrr. "Okay, millenials."
and thats writing and tone issues.
But after watching Sven demo BG3 I realized that I’m actually very pleased that the game is turn based. Why? Because my style of gameplay with BG 1 & 2 is to pause and micromanage the sh*t out of combat! I actually need a game that manages this tendency of mine in an arguably better anyway.
I didn’t really get into D:OS (2) because it just didn’t grab me the same as the BG series did in terms of setting, ambience, and characters. But I actually did enjoy the gameplay quite a lot. So now that is melded with the BG mythos. And it looks like story and range of role playing choices promises to be excellent in BG3.
I’m really looking forward to this game.
yeah despite my issues with pillars writing wise it does contain alot of he spirit of bg.
And they let Larian get the license to create a game after refusing several game studios all over the years, so they have all the right to call the game Baldur´s Gate 3 or whatever they want.
Sven Vincke, Mike Myers and Adam Smith were really forthright since the first interview, months ago, stating that they want to make a D&D5e game, using an improved version of the game engine of DOS; not based in the first games. Sven didn´t even know the endings of the first game when they asked him in an interview; so I wasn´t surprised about the gameplay. What I found puzzling is that so many people are flabbergasted about the fact that they are not going to use the story nor the mechanics of the (incredible) first games.
It was never meant to be. They told us that from the start.
So Baldur's Sin 3 huh. I actually think it looks like it'll be fun but they could just as easily have made Original Sin 3 where they can do anything they like with the systems and lore and... well everything, since they own that IP. I'm disappointed it's TB rather than RTwP. Not a fan of the 4 man party thing either, that just reeks "we want to put this on console" which, for some reason, is still stuck in "4 players are the max ever" mentality.
Yay for what will probably be another great CRPG, boo for not getting separate D:OS3 and BG3s.