I think this game isnt for veterans, it looks super childish and more aimed at ADHD kids who are low on concentration and need shiny things on screen every 5 seconds, mario kart, tik tok type of kids. But its not kids who support these game, its gen X, millenials, this shows how they have no clue.
The golden age of gaming is over, now its all greed and sjw devs paying pennies to crappy studios to putting games that are crap. Putting out the cute piece of crap without soul at the lowest cost possible.
I was surprised in the gender screen they didnt had a third option like "shemale" or something, but im sure theres gonna be filth somewhere along the storyline, (((WoTC))) demands it.
Wouldnt play it for free, they could have done a 3rd proper game, and hired a decent competent studio, not beamdog obviously, but a serious one and give us the BG we deserve. But that would be asking too much, its like expecting another decent Fallout game. Or Half life 3.
Party size (within reason) and the speed of combat are separate things, and the speed of combat being dependent on party size represents a flaw in game design. As a simple example, Skyrim has party size of one, and its combat is very tedious and drags on for me.
If I ever play this game, a very big 'if', I will only play it with the availability of a mod that allows me to have a party of six, because party size four is a deal-breaker. Then, with a party of six, if the combat drags, I won't accept my bigger party size as a valid excuse for why combat is dragging, because combat should not drag even with a party of six. So I will consider that a major strike against the game.
Lol - Flaw in game design. To you apparently. For the people that have bought the 2.5 million copies(and counting) there doesn't seem to be an issue. 4 players is fine and it's challenging. There isn't going to be a mod for a party of six.
Lol - Flaw in game design. To you apparently. For the people that have bought the 2.5 million copies(and counting) there doesn't seem to be an issue. 4 players is fine and it's challenging. There isn't going to be a mod for a party of six.
There already is such a mod, actually. The mod lets you adjust the party size to anywhere between 4 and up to 16, so you could conceivably bring along every single companion plus 7 more henchmen if you wanted to.
For me, I am enjoying BG3. My main complaint about the game is the camera. It is also a bit frustrating for me trying to figure out how to get from A to B only to find out I had to do a lot of jumping, etc. I'd rather spend the bulk of my time talking to NPC's and fighting while spending a lot less time trying to get to where I want to go.
For the most part though, I am really enjoying the game.
The game is the hardest nay possible from me. I didn't play much of it, like 3 hours. I didn't even enjoy it on a fundamental level for those 3 hours. I hate the camera, and I hate the interface, it's so much more clunky than should be remotely acceptable in 2023. Neverwinter Nights 1 and 2 are at least 2 decades old or so now, so they have age as an excuse. Also it's just obvious right away that it's a poor adaptation of D&D 5th. Might have been harder to tell that without seeing how well Solasta did it, but Solasta has better combat by far. Also I managed to get trapped into breaking my oath as a Paladin in like the first real encounter you get in Act 1, with the tieflings, because of the only option that would avoid that failing the check. Not the best first impression of how they handle the RP stuff.
The final part is based on things I have not played. Act 3 being an unfinished mess. I wish I could say I was surprised, but that has been how Larian rolls since the first Original Sin. No one I've talked to who has actually experienced act 3 has any positive things to say about any of it, even post the patches.
I have a lot of contempt for this game, and even more for Larian and my initial instincts that I hated so much they were given this project was completely right. They are disingenuous, cynical and poor game developers. But, that's my piece, I have no interest in debating, no one is changing my mind, I won't waste my time saying anything more on the subject, I'm just going to focus my time on games I do actually care about and like.
I love the originals and found them through my father who was a big fan of the original Baldur's Gate II. I'm only a young guy (Baldur's Gate 2 is actually older than me). Fell in love with the Enhanced Editions. The stories are amazing, choices and consequences are great, the villain's are incredible, opportunities for role-playing are the best I've experienced and I get incredibly immersed into the story, world, my character and the companions (in the second game especially) who feel real. On top of this the music and art is beautiful. I have so many good memories. Often soundbites and quotes come into my mind.
Games with heart and soul like Planescape Torment, Knights of the Old Republic II, Baldur's Gate 1 & 2, Mask of the Betrayer and even the Fallout games - were made by enthusiasts for enthusiasts. Shadows of Amn and Planescape Torment are at the pinnacle of best role-playing game writing. KOTOR II is good as well.
My verdict is a massive nay.
Myself and many others weren't happy with Baldur's Gate 3 's title. It's not a sequel to the Bhaalspawn saga, nor should it be. Do you not think it would be more suitable to name it in a similar fashion to the Baldur's Gate Dark Alliance games? Call it Baldur's Gate: __________.
Overall, I think that Baldur's Gate 3's title is taking advantage of and profiting from the original game's success. I also believe the same thing about the cancelled: Baldur's Gate III the Black Hound - a game which was not related at all to the original series and was set to be released whilst the developers/publishers (Interplay and Black Isle Studios) seemed to be having financial troubles at the time. Would the Black Hound have been a good game? Maybe. Was it related at all to the original games? No. Was it using the name of a previously released popular series to generate interest and make more money? Of course.
Moving towards the present, Baldur's Gate 3 is generic and too "mainstream". I don't think it is high fantasy. The graphics and art style do not look good at all. Acknowledgment: I've never played the Divinity Original Sin games. There are people who throw around the "Divinity Original Sin re-skin" criticism around online. You can make your own judgment and assessment on the validity of this claim. I do see where those people are coming from.
I've often felt the quality of modern day books, role-playing games, movies and TV shows have deteriorated. By this I mean in the ability to tell great stories. I know people in real life who play BG3, especially multi-player. Let me tell you, it is clear as day Baldur's Gate 3 is for a different audience. It is a pity.
I'm particularly devastated to have learned that Sarevok, yes Sarevok (!!!) has been inserted into Baldur's Gate 3. I say inserted because it is not natural or organic.
A personal criticism of mine, is: If you wanted to create a true sequel to the original Baldur's Gate games you would involve a lot of the people who were involved in the original games.
I love the originals and found them through my father who was a big fan of the original Baldur's Gate II. I'm only a young guy (Baldur's Gate 2 is actually older than me). Fell in love with the Enhanced Editions. The stories are amazing, choices and consequences are great, the villain's are incredible, opportunities for role-playing are the best I've experienced and I get incredibly immersed into the story, world, my character and the companions (in the second game especially) who feel real. On top of this the music and art is beautiful. I have so many good memories. Often soundbites and quotes come into my mind.
Games with heart and soul like Planescape Torment, Knights of the Old Republic II, Baldur's Gate 1 & 2, Mask of the Betrayer and even the Fallout games - were made by enthusiasts for enthusiasts. Shadows of Amn and Planescape Torment are at the pinnacle of best role-playing game writing. KOTOR II is good as well.
My verdict is a massive nay.
Myself and many others weren't happy with Baldur's Gate 3 's title. It's not a sequel to the Bhaalspawn saga, nor should it be. Do you not think it would be more suitable to name it in a similar fashion to the Baldur's Gate Dark Alliance games? Call it Baldur's Gate: __________.
Overall, I think that Baldur's Gate 3's title is taking advantage of and profiting from the original game's success. I also believe the same thing about the cancelled: Baldur's Gate III the Black Hound - a game which was not related at all to the original series and was set to be released whilst the developers/publishers (Interplay and Black Isle Studios) seemed to be having financial troubles at the time. Would the Black Hound have been a good game? Maybe. Was it related at all to the original games? No. Was it using the name of a previously released popular series to generate interest and make more money? Of course.
Moving towards the present, Baldur's Gate 3 is generic and too "mainstream". I don't think it is high fantasy. The graphics and art style do not look good at all. Acknowledgment: I've never played the Divinity Original Sin games. There are people who throw around the "Divinity Original Sin re-skin" criticism around online. You can make your own judgment and assessment on the validity of this claim. I do see where those people are coming from.
I've often felt the quality of modern day books, role-playing games, movies and TV shows have deteriorated. By this I mean in the ability to tell great stories. I know people in real life who play BG3, especially multi-player. Let me tell you, it is clear as day Baldur's Gate 3 is for a different audience. It is a pity.
I'm particularly devastated to have learned that Sarevok, yes Sarevok (!!!) has been inserted into Baldur's Gate 3. I say inserted because it is not natural or organic.
A personal criticism of mine, is: If you wanted to create a true sequel to the original Baldur's Gate games you would involve a lot of the people who were involved in the original games.
I agree with most of what you are saying.
I was also astonished to discover that Sarevok was in this "sequel". I'm not a fan of resurrecting previous characters in a "sequel". Show some imagination and create some interesting new villains/characters. I will say that I am enjoying getting to know the new characters that are recruitable and helping them with their own problems. They have interesting backgrounds and their own set of problems they are faced with having to overcome. I also have to say that it is fun having Jaheira and Minsc in my adventure again. Although I only include them in my party to do their individual quests. Speaking of Jaheira, what's up with druids not having a lot of heals in this game?
It's taking some getting used to a 4 person party and all the new spells and the battle mechanics. A six person party would have allowed for a lot more interesting banter between party members. I guess the developers weren't up to the task.
I always start out on easy mode to learn the game and then play more difficult levels on subsequent playthroughs. I am appalled at how difficult "easy" mode is a lot of the time. I've recently tried to finish up Shadowheart's quest with her final battle. The opposing forces are overwhelming! (Unfairly so imo. Especially for an encounter on "easy" setting.) My frustration has me taking a break from the game for a few days.
Speaking of frustration, I don't like how difficult it is to get from point A to point B. All this requirement to jump from here to there all the time is something I'd really rather not have to deal with. I'd much rather spend the bulk of my time talking to characters, discovering new places, and fighting "fair" battles. I'm really not enjoying having to quit my game to research a walk through for information on how to get to where I want to go.
I also find the camera unsatisfactory. Makes it unreasonably difficult to be able to look right, left, ahead while traveling through undiscovered territory.
I also agree that they have used the popularity of the Baldur's Gate series to make money. About the only thing that is similar is that the city of Baldur's Gate is in the story.
Ok. I guess I've vented enough for this post. Somehow, I still don't feel better though.
I think this game isnt for veterans, it looks super childish and more aimed at ADHD kids who are low on concentration and need shiny things on screen every 5 seconds, mario kart, tik tok type of kids. But its not kids who support these game, its gen X, millenials, this shows how they have no clue.
The golden age of gaming is over, now its all greed and sjw devs paying pennies to crappy studios to putting games that are crap. Putting out the cute piece of crap without soul at the lowest cost possible.
I was surprised in the gender screen they didnt had a third option like "shemale" or something, but im sure theres gonna be filth somewhere along the storyline, (((WoTC))) demands it.
Wouldnt play it for free, they could have done a 3rd proper game, and hired a decent competent studio, not beamdog obviously, but a serious one and give us the BG we deserve. But that would be asking too much, its like expecting another decent Fallout game. Or Half life 3.
I'm far from an SJW, Zoomer, or ADHD kid and I love BG3
To say that BG3 is a game that appeals to someone with attention deficit just indicates that you've never played it. It has serious flaws, but it's absolutely not similar to a fast paced but simple game like mario kart. I'll probably write a fuller review in this section eventually. The action in BG3 is, imo, undeniably slower paced than BG1 and BG2. Both of those are actually quite fast-paced games, especially the combat, in comparison to just about all modern CRPG's.
I love the originals and found them through my father who was a big fan of the original Baldur's Gate II. I'm only a young guy (Baldur's Gate 2 is actually older than me). Fell in love with the Enhanced Editions. The stories are amazing, choices and consequences are great, the villain's are incredible, opportunities for role-playing are the best I've experienced and I get incredibly immersed into the story, world, my character and the companions (in the second game especially) who feel real. On top of this the music and art is beautiful. I have so many good memories. Often soundbites and quotes come into my mind.
Games with heart and soul like Planescape Torment, Knights of the Old Republic II, Baldur's Gate 1 & 2, Mask of the Betrayer and even the Fallout games - were made by enthusiasts for enthusiasts. Shadows of Amn and Planescape Torment are at the pinnacle of best role-playing game writing. KOTOR II is good as well.
My verdict is a massive nay.
Myself and many others weren't happy with Baldur's Gate 3 's title. It's not a sequel to the Bhaalspawn saga, nor should it be. Do you not think it would be more suitable to name it in a similar fashion to the Baldur's Gate Dark Alliance games? Call it Baldur's Gate: __________.
Overall, I think that Baldur's Gate 3's title is taking advantage of and profiting from the original game's success. I also believe the same thing about the cancelled: Baldur's Gate III the Black Hound - a game which was not related at all to the original series and was set to be released whilst the developers/publishers (Interplay and Black Isle Studios) seemed to be having financial troubles at the time. Would the Black Hound have been a good game? Maybe. Was it related at all to the original games? No. Was it using the name of a previously released popular series to generate interest and make more money? Of course.
Moving towards the present, Baldur's Gate 3 is generic and too "mainstream". I don't think it is high fantasy. The graphics and art style do not look good at all. Acknowledgment: I've never played the Divinity Original Sin games. There are people who throw around the "Divinity Original Sin re-skin" criticism around online. You can make your own judgment and assessment on the validity of this claim. I do see where those people are coming from.
I've often felt the quality of modern day books, role-playing games, movies and TV shows have deteriorated. By this I mean in the ability to tell great stories. I know people in real life who play BG3, especially multi-player. Let me tell you, it is clear as day Baldur's Gate 3 is for a different audience. It is a pity.
I'm particularly devastated to have learned that Sarevok, yes Sarevok (!!!) has been inserted into Baldur's Gate 3. I say inserted because it is not natural or organic.
A personal criticism of mine, is: If you wanted to create a true sequel to the original Baldur's Gate games you would involve a lot of the people who were involved in the original games.
I agree with most of what you are saying.
I was also astonished to discover that Sarevok was in this "sequel". I'm not a fan of resurrecting previous characters in a "sequel". Show some imagination and create some interesting new villains/characters. I will say that I am enjoying getting to know the new characters that are recruitable and helping them with their own problems. They have interesting backgrounds and their own set of problems they are faced with having to overcome. I also have to say that it is fun having Jaheira and Minsc in my adventure again. Although I only include them in my party to do their individual quests. Speaking of Jaheira, what's up with druids not having a lot of heals in this game?
It's taking some getting used to a 4 person party and all the new spells and the battle mechanics. A six person party would have allowed for a lot more interesting banter between party members. I guess the developers weren't up to the task.
I always start out on easy mode to learn the game and then play more difficult levels on subsequent playthroughs. I am appalled at how difficult "easy" mode is a lot of the time. I've recently tried to finish up Shadowheart's quest with her final battle. The opposing forces are overwhelming! (Unfairly so imo. Especially for an encounter on "easy" setting.) My frustration has me taking a break from the game for a few days.
Speaking of frustration, I don't like how difficult it is to get from point A to point B. All this requirement to jump from here to there all the time is something I'd really rather not have to deal with. I'd much rather spend the bulk of my time talking to characters, discovering new places, and fighting "fair" battles. I'm really not enjoying having to quit my game to research a walk through for information on how to get to where I want to go.
I also find the camera unsatisfactory. Makes it unreasonably difficult to be able to look right, left, ahead while traveling through undiscovered territory.
I also agree that they have used the popularity of the Baldur's Gate series to make money. About the only thing that is similar is that the city of Baldur's Gate is in the story.
Ok. I guess I've vented enough for this post. Somehow, I still don't feel better though.
I've enjoyed reading about your experiences and seeing your genuine criticism, feedback and thoughts displayed in your comment. I'm a big fan of what you said, about creating new villain's and new characters.
If you don't feel any better venting, that's totally fine. You may think and feel it's quite negative and toxic.
I'm not a fan of BG3 at all, but I have no desire to spend my time hating on it, bad-mouthing it, wishing bad on it, being negative about it - etc. I try to go about my life in peace. I know I love the original games and I'm content with that.
Eh, I think I might as well post that my attitude has changed on BG3 somewhat, not from playing it, because I'm waiting on the Xbox release, to play it on my 4k tv set up, I think the game would just be better on a TV than on my monitor, not to mention my PC is a bit old now. It can run it but not without some issues. It's also a case of me having a major change in attitude about games in general (trying to be less negative all round in my expectations).
I remain somewhat frustrated that Larian again put their game for a long time in early access and still clearly released it unfinished. I think it's just not taking advantage of what Early Access should really be. So waiting for updates has also been part of it. But when I finally play it, I will be fair, I will treat it as it's own game and judge it solely on how good I think it is, instead of how it compares to other games.
I know a couple of people who bought it and have played it. Based on what they have been telling me about BG3, I will "hard pass" on this one--never going to buy it, never going to play it.
I know a couple of people who bought it and have played it. Based on what they have been telling me about BG3, I will "hard pass" on this one--never going to buy it, never going to play it.
You gave a pretty vague statement. I'm interested in knowing what exactly it is about bg3 makes it a hard pass for you.
There are some things that I find annoying or don't like about the game. The difficulty in getting where I want to go due to having to jump, climb, etc. I also prefer the 6 members in a party format. It just seems to take forever just to go buy and sell. I also don't like the camera.
Having said all that, none of it is a hard pass for me. I love the story with a rich background which includes past history from bg1 and 2. The cinematics are great as well as the graphics. The game has provided a wonderful adventure for me while getting to know some really interesting new characters and their stories.
The romance aspect leaves a lot to be desired for me. I really like the romantic scenes and dialog in the game. My main complaint there is that the romantic interactions are too few and far between.
I also like that the game is very replayable. I'm on my third playthrough and am still discovering new quests and different things that I've missed.
In summary, although there are some things that I don't like about the game, it still provided me with a fun and exciting adventure. I do realize tho that what appeals to myself doesn't necessarily appeal to others.
I hope you are able to find the game that gives you a lot of fun filled adventuring.
I know a couple of people who bought it and have played it. Based on what they have been telling me about BG3, I will "hard pass" on this one--never going to buy it, never going to play it.
I'm in the unfortunate position of having bought it. But I now know I will never properly play it. I looked up at what they did to Viconia.
It's so inexcusable I would rather this game didn't get made at all, and I will forever hate it and hate that it became a success because it spits in the eye of myself and anyone who really liked Viconia in the original games as a character, and as Bioware's best romance by some way in any of the games they ever did.
But no one who plays it having not played the originals will understand this, and some others who have won't understand why it's such a big deal. But to me, it's not even necessarily for "fanboyness" towards Viconia but genuinely more at why was the decision made to even include her at all. They didn't need her for that story, in fact she is the one known Priestess of Shar who should never have been put in that role. The decision seems to have been made with a staggering contempt for the original writing of the character and I just hate it. I can't put into words how much I hate it. For this alone BG3 is on my list of worst games ever made. And I'm going to be dealing with the ramifications of it's existence and it's success probably for the rest of my life and that's the version of Viconia more people are going to know and just UGGFRRRGGHHHHHHHH
I know a couple of people who bought it and have played it. Based on what they have been telling me about BG3, I will "hard pass" on this one--never going to buy it, never going to play it.
I'm in the unfortunate position of having bought it. But I now know I will never properly play it. I looked up at what they did to Viconia.
It's so inexcusable I would rather this game didn't get made at all, and I will forever hate it and hate that it became a success because it spits in the eye of myself and anyone who really liked Viconia in the original games as a character, and as Bioware's best romance by some way in any of the games they ever did.
But no one who plays it having not played the originals will understand this, and some others who have won't understand why it's such a big deal. But to me, it's not even necessarily for "fanboyness" towards Viconia but genuinely more at why was the decision made to even include her at all. They didn't need her for that story, in fact she is the one known Priestess of Shar who should never have been put in that role. The decision seems to have been made with a staggering contempt for the original writing of the character and I just hate it. I can't put into words how much I hate it. For this alone BG3 is on my list of worst games ever made. And I'm going to be dealing with the ramifications of it's existence and it's success probably for the rest of my life and that's the version of Viconia more people are going to know and just UGGFRRRGGHHHHHHHH
It's a crime. It's an absolute crime.
I hear ya. Viconia is the main character in BG1 and 2 that influenced me to play an evil party more than I normally would, just because she was so much fun to romance. I too am really disappointed at the really minor role she plays in BG3. In a perfect world for me, all of the original BG characters that they brought back should have been recruitable in Act 1.
So although I'm not happy about the minor roles that Viconia, Jaheira, Minsc and even Elminster play in BG3, it was good to see them included in the game. It brought back a lot of fond memories of adventuring with them.
For me, I still really love playing BG3, but it definitely could use a lot of improvements in how the story plays out when including some of the original characters in the game imo.
A little off topic, I would like to say that I was especially happy to see that they kept the turn based playstyle in the game. I can't emphasize enough how much this old man with much slower reflexes these days loves that style of gameplay.
So sorry that Viconia's minor role in the game has turned you off to the entire game. I admit it does suck imo that she plays such a minor role in only one scene, battle where most players are left to side with Shadowheart and kill Viconia, unless they are playing an evil game. Even then, it's way too little, too late where Viconia is concerned.
So sorry that Viconia's minor role in the game has turned you off to the entire game. I admit it does suck imo that she plays such a minor role in only one scene, battle where most players are left to side with Shadowheart and kill Viconia, unless they are playing an evil game. Even then, it's way too little, too late where Viconia is concerned.
The right decision would have been not to use her at all if this was all they had for her. At least Minsc and Jaheira are party members, and general do-gooders and that's what they are in BG3 from what I've seen. Viconia is more complex because of her background, because she is evil but clearly has some capacity for good and honestly the biggest offense is how much she acts against her background. Someone who blasphemed against Lolth for asking her to go too far would absolutely turn on Shar, I mean on the surface she has so many options to turn to if she falls out of Shar's grace. They did with her the one thing they shouldn't have and I already struggle to accept BG3 because it's so seperated from the other games in so many ways and I hate Larian's engine. Not necessarily that it's turn based but Larian's engine is awful.
But taking my favourite party member from the old games and putting them in this generic villian role no matter how minor, yeah it matters to me enough to ruin the entire game but I also feel Larian were never going to be the company to make a BG3 I could enjoy.
So sorry that Viconia's minor role in the game has turned you off to the entire game. I admit it does suck imo that she plays such a minor role in only one scene, battle where most players are left to side with Shadowheart and kill Viconia, unless they are playing an evil game. Even then, it's way too little, too late where Viconia is concerned.
The right decision would have been not to use her at all if this was all they had for her. At least Minsc and Jaheira are party members, and general do-gooders and that's what they are in BG3 from what I've seen. Viconia is more complex because of her background, because she is evil but clearly has some capacity for good and honestly the biggest offense is how much she acts against her background. Someone who blasphemed against Lolth for asking her to go too far would absolutely turn on Shar, I mean on the surface she has so many options to turn to if she falls out of Shar's grace. They did with her the one thing they shouldn't have and I already struggle to accept BG3 because it's so seperated from the other games in so many ways and I hate Larian's engine. Not necessarily that it's turn based but Larian's engine is awful.
But taking my favourite party member from the old games and putting them in this generic villian role no matter how minor, yeah it matters to me enough to ruin the entire game. Especially given there were other options like not bringing her up and ruining her... or even better, making her a potential party member who's kinda middling on the alignment scale. Instead they did the one thing I consider to be a spit in the eye. I also feel Larian were never going to be the company to make a BG3 I could enjoy, based on their previous work and I'm still even kinda shocked how right I was.
PS sorry about the accidental double post, not sure how that happened.
Although I do very much like BG3 on its own merits and would recommend it to anyone looking for a fun and engrossing D&D CRPG, I also get the very strong feeling that originally, BG3 was not going to have Minsc/Jaheira/Viconia, or even the Dead Three as part of the plot at all. They DID do a good job of capturing Minsc and Jaheira, but their participation in the story feels tacked on. (And yes, Larian/WotC retconned a lot of Viconia's character development in BG2, which I'm not happy about.) My feeling is that originally, BG3 was basically just going to be "illithids all the way down". Then, after feedback from people like me who criticized the game for calling itself BG3 when it basically had nothing to do with the previous games, Larian then reworked the story to include the Dead Three and add in more links to the original games. I kind of appreciate the effort, but yes, I still think that they'd have been better off just making their own D&D game without needing to tie in to the Bhaalspawn saga at all. If they REALLY wanted to piggy back off the Baldur's Gate name, they could have just called it "Baldur's Gate: Rise of the Illithids" or something similar. It wouldn't be the first time that a D&D game leveraged the BG name without actually having anything to do with the first two BG games, after all (see: Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance).
So sorry that Viconia's minor role in the game has turned you off to the entire game. I admit it does suck imo that she plays such a minor role in only one scene, battle where most players are left to side with Shadowheart and kill Viconia, unless they are playing an evil game. Even then, it's way too little, too late where Viconia is concerned.
The right decision would have been not to use her at all if this was all they had for her. At least Minsc and Jaheira are party members, and general do-gooders and that's what they are in BG3 from what I've seen. Viconia is more complex because of her background, because she is evil but clearly has some capacity for good and honestly the biggest offense is how much she acts against her background. Someone who blasphemed against Lolth for asking her to go too far would absolutely turn on Shar, I mean on the surface she has so many options to turn to if she falls out of Shar's grace. They did with her the one thing they shouldn't have and I already struggle to accept BG3 because it's so seperated from the other games in so many ways and I hate Larian's engine. Not necessarily that it's turn based but Larian's engine is awful.
But taking my favourite party member from the old games and putting them in this generic villian role no matter how minor, yeah it matters to me enough to ruin the entire game. Especially given there were other options like not bringing her up and ruining her... or even better, making her a potential party member who's kinda middling on the alignment scale. Instead they did the one thing I consider to be a spit in the eye. I also feel Larian were never going to be the company to make a BG3 I could enjoy, based on their previous work and I'm still even kinda shocked how right I was.
PS sorry about the accidental double post, not sure how that happened.
Completely agree, Larian's "We will do right by these characters and the game will be meaningfully linked to the previous games" was just marketing and an attempt at growing the hype to lure in the fans... what they did is basically just "Let me bring back Sarevok and Viconia, destroy their characters and use them as a cheap punching bag for you MY new shiny origin character".
The game is so riddled with inconsistencies to the point one could mistake it with swiss cheese: Jergal somehow resurrecting people despite his dogmas, Quasi-gods able to bestow powers to followers despite being unable to do it lorewise, Sarevok being "resurrected by Bhaal" and becoming a bootlicker(and being incest daddy to keep the bloodline pure... WHICH BLOODLINE? He's not a damn Bhaalspawn anymore and died of old age in Kara-Tur), Viconia suddenly forgetting she defied Lolth and even Shar at the end of ToB(Neutral or Good pc makes sure she slaughters her cult and shrugs with indifference at Shar's reprimands), in this travesty of a game she even betrays her sisterly love for Valas by kidnapping and subjecting children to the same abuse both of them went through in House Devir!
It can be fun to play and good graphically, but the writing and the treatment of lore and legacy characters is absolutely disgusting.
Will only ever play it if they ever remove Viconia and Sarevok(and Balduran too, they really had to shit even on dead characters and bring them back) or make sure they turn into dopplegangers as soon as they drop dead. Cause right now, i want to be nowhere near to it.
A big Aye for me, after playing BG3 a fair amount and also going back to the original saga.
I still prefer the original games, and that's largely due to a deeply flawed combat system in BG3. But I think the new title deserves all the praise it's currently getting. A standout among its generation of CRPGs, and this has been a very good stretch for the genre. I think it's unfortunate if you're mired in negativity about the series legacy because of this game. This game, and its praise, means that the series will have a huge lifespan in the gaming community. Some classic, groundbreaking games like the Ultima series have largely vanished at least in the minds of most players. This title ensures a secure place likely for decades.
BG3 is groundbreaking for the genre in a key way. It's sort of like what Quake was for first person shooters. It transforms the 2D+ gameplay of the world into something truly 3D. And I think that's the key aspect it will leave as a legacy. More than any other aspect. Obviously its visual and audio presentation across the board are outstanding. The game has clearly taken a great deal of inspiration for the Souls-like games in terms of environmental exploration. I love that you can stare across a large expanse at some distant object and the plan a path to it.
There are some issues with the story and how the game is structured. Though my issues differ greatly with what others here have said. First of all, where is The Return? Several big moments in the BG series involve a return to some previously traveled area. Every first time player will not forget the return to Candlekeep. But even on subsequent playthroughs, the return to Baldur's Gate--where you're a fugitive--remains exciting on every playthrough. The return to Athkatla and the main world in BG2 after what seems like a lifetime is also an amazing moment. Why create such a richly detailed game world, with choice and consequences, evolving NPC's, and then never have us return to a place that has changed? A huge missed opportunity.
The game is poorly structured in a key way. The opening act is excellent. The second act is too linear. The third act is too open world. Really it's the middle of the game where we should be in Baldur's Gate, inundated with a mess of sidequests. By the time most players get to Act 3, I suspect they'll just want to wrap things up.
I'm not a fan of fifth edition rules. I think it especially suffers with character builds. Classes have just become a meaningless concept in a lot of modern CRPG's and it's unfortunate. Classes should not just be a set of bonuses and skills -- many of which are shared across classes. But something the player has to commit to. Classes should have a roleplaying aspect, and I'm sorry but that means creating some limits. Moreover, a realization I had in playing BG3 and the originals is that staggered level-ups greatly improve the "open world" quality of the game. In BG3 when your party hits levels 4 and 5 it's a huge jump in power, eradicating much of the early game challenge. A similar boost happens at levels 8 and level 12. This means previously challenging encounters quickly become a joke. In the original saga, because there was no single moment where your whole party hit some key benchmark at the same time, your growth in power was more steady, less volatile.
The combat just isn't consistently challenging and I think some larger design decisions have made it un-fixable for Larian. Part of the blame rests on 5th edition rules but a big part rests on Larian. Far too many powerful items in the game that, again, any class can use. Essentially granting players powers based not on a series of build choices they've made over the course of the adventure, but on carrying some gear in your inventory that anybody can use. I would argue the combat is less interesting on average than in Original Sin 2.
A second issue on combat is that the game doesn't have a resting system and additional systems that generate the sort of dangerous, deep dungeon crawl experience that you get in the original games. Consider that the endgame content of BG1 is pretty much all long runs thru dungeons that you either cannot exit at all or that you're at great pains to abort early--Cloakwood, Candlekeep, the finale, the Ice prison, Balduran's Isle, the depths of Durlag's. You're encouraged to plan ahead on these excursions, and to plan to be gone for awhile! And of course this jumps to another level in BG2, with its grand detour. However, because Larian created a camping system that has no distinction between "safe areas" and "dangerous" areas there's only a handful of part where the game truly put you to a dungeon crawl kind of test. And that ought to be the central challenge in these games.
I don't have any issues on the plot or characters. I think it's mostly well done, even the callbacks. Ignominious endings for former companions, even seemingly canon ones, is nothing new to the series. It's super common!
Comments
The golden age of gaming is over, now its all greed and sjw devs paying pennies to crappy studios to putting games that are crap. Putting out the cute piece of crap without soul at the lowest cost possible.
I was surprised in the gender screen they didnt had a third option like "shemale" or something, but im sure theres gonna be filth somewhere along the storyline, (((WoTC))) demands it.
Wouldnt play it for free, they could have done a 3rd proper game, and hired a decent competent studio, not beamdog obviously, but a serious one and give us the BG we deserve. But that would be asking too much, its like expecting another decent Fallout game. Or Half life 3.
Lol - Flaw in game design. To you apparently. For the people that have bought the 2.5 million copies(and counting) there doesn't seem to be an issue. 4 players is fine and it's challenging. There isn't going to be a mod for a party of six.
There already is such a mod, actually.
For those who might be curious, it's at: https://www.nexusmods.com/baldursgate3/mods/327?tab=files
For the most part though, I am really enjoying the game.
The final part is based on things I have not played. Act 3 being an unfinished mess. I wish I could say I was surprised, but that has been how Larian rolls since the first Original Sin. No one I've talked to who has actually experienced act 3 has any positive things to say about any of it, even post the patches.
I have a lot of contempt for this game, and even more for Larian and my initial instincts that I hated so much they were given this project was completely right. They are disingenuous, cynical and poor game developers. But, that's my piece, I have no interest in debating, no one is changing my mind, I won't waste my time saying anything more on the subject, I'm just going to focus my time on games I do actually care about and like.
Games with heart and soul like Planescape Torment, Knights of the Old Republic II, Baldur's Gate 1 & 2, Mask of the Betrayer and even the Fallout games - were made by enthusiasts for enthusiasts. Shadows of Amn and Planescape Torment are at the pinnacle of best role-playing game writing. KOTOR II is good as well.
My verdict is a massive nay.
Myself and many others weren't happy with Baldur's Gate 3 's title. It's not a sequel to the Bhaalspawn saga, nor should it be. Do you not think it would be more suitable to name it in a similar fashion to the Baldur's Gate Dark Alliance games? Call it Baldur's Gate: __________.
Overall, I think that Baldur's Gate 3's title is taking advantage of and profiting from the original game's success. I also believe the same thing about the cancelled: Baldur's Gate III the Black Hound - a game which was not related at all to the original series and was set to be released whilst the developers/publishers (Interplay and Black Isle Studios) seemed to be having financial troubles at the time. Would the Black Hound have been a good game? Maybe. Was it related at all to the original games? No. Was it using the name of a previously released popular series to generate interest and make more money? Of course.
Moving towards the present, Baldur's Gate 3 is generic and too "mainstream". I don't think it is high fantasy. The graphics and art style do not look good at all. Acknowledgment: I've never played the Divinity Original Sin games. There are people who throw around the "Divinity Original Sin re-skin" criticism around online. You can make your own judgment and assessment on the validity of this claim. I do see where those people are coming from.
I've often felt the quality of modern day books, role-playing games, movies and TV shows have deteriorated. By this I mean in the ability to tell great stories. I know people in real life who play BG3, especially multi-player. Let me tell you, it is clear as day Baldur's Gate 3 is for a different audience. It is a pity.
I'm particularly devastated to have learned that Sarevok, yes Sarevok (!!!) has been inserted into Baldur's Gate 3. I say inserted because it is not natural or organic.
A personal criticism of mine, is: If you wanted to create a true sequel to the original Baldur's Gate games you would involve a lot of the people who were involved in the original games.
I agree with most of what you are saying.
I was also astonished to discover that Sarevok was in this "sequel". I'm not a fan of resurrecting previous characters in a "sequel". Show some imagination and create some interesting new villains/characters. I will say that I am enjoying getting to know the new characters that are recruitable and helping them with their own problems. They have interesting backgrounds and their own set of problems they are faced with having to overcome. I also have to say that it is fun having Jaheira and Minsc in my adventure again. Although I only include them in my party to do their individual quests. Speaking of Jaheira, what's up with druids not having a lot of heals in this game?
It's taking some getting used to a 4 person party and all the new spells and the battle mechanics. A six person party would have allowed for a lot more interesting banter between party members. I guess the developers weren't up to the task.
I always start out on easy mode to learn the game and then play more difficult levels on subsequent playthroughs. I am appalled at how difficult "easy" mode is a lot of the time. I've recently tried to finish up Shadowheart's quest with her final battle. The opposing forces are overwhelming! (Unfairly so imo. Especially for an encounter on "easy" setting.) My frustration has me taking a break from the game for a few days.
Speaking of frustration, I don't like how difficult it is to get from point A to point B. All this requirement to jump from here to there all the time is something I'd really rather not have to deal with. I'd much rather spend the bulk of my time talking to characters, discovering new places, and fighting "fair" battles. I'm really not enjoying having to quit my game to research a walk through for information on how to get to where I want to go.
I also find the camera unsatisfactory. Makes it unreasonably difficult to be able to look right, left, ahead while traveling through undiscovered territory.
I also agree that they have used the popularity of the Baldur's Gate series to make money. About the only thing that is similar is that the city of Baldur's Gate is in the story.
Ok. I guess I've vented enough for this post. Somehow, I still don't feel better though.
I'm far from an SJW, Zoomer, or ADHD kid and I love BG3
I've enjoyed reading about your experiences and seeing your genuine criticism, feedback and thoughts displayed in your comment. I'm a big fan of what you said, about creating new villain's and new characters.
If you don't feel any better venting, that's totally fine. You may think and feel it's quite negative and toxic.
I'm not a fan of BG3 at all, but I have no desire to spend my time hating on it, bad-mouthing it, wishing bad on it, being negative about it - etc. I try to go about my life in peace. I know I love the original games and I'm content with that.
I remain somewhat frustrated that Larian again put their game for a long time in early access and still clearly released it unfinished. I think it's just not taking advantage of what Early Access should really be. So waiting for updates has also been part of it. But when I finally play it, I will be fair, I will treat it as it's own game and judge it solely on how good I think it is, instead of how it compares to other games.
You gave a pretty vague statement. I'm interested in knowing what exactly it is about bg3 makes it a hard pass for you.
There are some things that I find annoying or don't like about the game. The difficulty in getting where I want to go due to having to jump, climb, etc. I also prefer the 6 members in a party format. It just seems to take forever just to go buy and sell. I also don't like the camera.
Having said all that, none of it is a hard pass for me. I love the story with a rich background which includes past history from bg1 and 2. The cinematics are great as well as the graphics. The game has provided a wonderful adventure for me while getting to know some really interesting new characters and their stories.
The romance aspect leaves a lot to be desired for me. I really like the romantic scenes and dialog in the game. My main complaint there is that the romantic interactions are too few and far between.
I also like that the game is very replayable. I'm on my third playthrough and am still discovering new quests and different things that I've missed.
In summary, although there are some things that I don't like about the game, it still provided me with a fun and exciting adventure. I do realize tho that what appeals to myself doesn't necessarily appeal to others.
I hope you are able to find the game that gives you a lot of fun filled adventuring.
That is what Fallout, especially New Vegas, is for.
I'm in the unfortunate position of having bought it. But I now know I will never properly play it. I looked up at what they did to Viconia.
It's so inexcusable I would rather this game didn't get made at all, and I will forever hate it and hate that it became a success because it spits in the eye of myself and anyone who really liked Viconia in the original games as a character, and as Bioware's best romance by some way in any of the games they ever did.
But no one who plays it having not played the originals will understand this, and some others who have won't understand why it's such a big deal. But to me, it's not even necessarily for "fanboyness" towards Viconia but genuinely more at why was the decision made to even include her at all. They didn't need her for that story, in fact she is the one known Priestess of Shar who should never have been put in that role. The decision seems to have been made with a staggering contempt for the original writing of the character and I just hate it. I can't put into words how much I hate it. For this alone BG3 is on my list of worst games ever made. And I'm going to be dealing with the ramifications of it's existence and it's success probably for the rest of my life and that's the version of Viconia more people are going to know and just UGGFRRRGGHHHHHHHH
It's a crime. It's an absolute crime.
I hear ya. Viconia is the main character in BG1 and 2 that influenced me to play an evil party more than I normally would, just because she was so much fun to romance. I too am really disappointed at the really minor role she plays in BG3. In a perfect world for me, all of the original BG characters that they brought back should have been recruitable in Act 1.
So although I'm not happy about the minor roles that Viconia, Jaheira, Minsc and even Elminster play in BG3, it was good to see them included in the game. It brought back a lot of fond memories of adventuring with them.
For me, I still really love playing BG3, but it definitely could use a lot of improvements in how the story plays out when including some of the original characters in the game imo.
A little off topic, I would like to say that I was especially happy to see that they kept the turn based playstyle in the game. I can't emphasize enough how much this old man with much slower reflexes these days loves that style of gameplay.
So sorry that Viconia's minor role in the game has turned you off to the entire game. I admit it does suck imo that she plays such a minor role in only one scene, battle where most players are left to side with Shadowheart and kill Viconia, unless they are playing an evil game. Even then, it's way too little, too late where Viconia is concerned.
The right decision would have been not to use her at all if this was all they had for her. At least Minsc and Jaheira are party members, and general do-gooders and that's what they are in BG3 from what I've seen. Viconia is more complex because of her background, because she is evil but clearly has some capacity for good and honestly the biggest offense is how much she acts against her background. Someone who blasphemed against Lolth for asking her to go too far would absolutely turn on Shar, I mean on the surface she has so many options to turn to if she falls out of Shar's grace. They did with her the one thing they shouldn't have and I already struggle to accept BG3 because it's so seperated from the other games in so many ways and I hate Larian's engine. Not necessarily that it's turn based but Larian's engine is awful.
But taking my favourite party member from the old games and putting them in this generic villian role no matter how minor, yeah it matters to me enough to ruin the entire game but I also feel Larian were never going to be the company to make a BG3 I could enjoy.
The right decision would have been not to use her at all if this was all they had for her. At least Minsc and Jaheira are party members, and general do-gooders and that's what they are in BG3 from what I've seen. Viconia is more complex because of her background, because she is evil but clearly has some capacity for good and honestly the biggest offense is how much she acts against her background. Someone who blasphemed against Lolth for asking her to go too far would absolutely turn on Shar, I mean on the surface she has so many options to turn to if she falls out of Shar's grace. They did with her the one thing they shouldn't have and I already struggle to accept BG3 because it's so seperated from the other games in so many ways and I hate Larian's engine. Not necessarily that it's turn based but Larian's engine is awful.
But taking my favourite party member from the old games and putting them in this generic villian role no matter how minor, yeah it matters to me enough to ruin the entire game. Especially given there were other options like not bringing her up and ruining her... or even better, making her a potential party member who's kinda middling on the alignment scale. Instead they did the one thing I consider to be a spit in the eye. I also feel Larian were never going to be the company to make a BG3 I could enjoy, based on their previous work and I'm still even kinda shocked how right I was.
PS sorry about the accidental double post, not sure how that happened.
Completely agree, Larian's "We will do right by these characters and the game will be meaningfully linked to the previous games" was just marketing and an attempt at growing the hype to lure in the fans... what they did is basically just "Let me bring back Sarevok and Viconia, destroy their characters and use them as a cheap punching bag for you MY new shiny origin character".
The game is so riddled with inconsistencies to the point one could mistake it with swiss cheese: Jergal somehow resurrecting people despite his dogmas, Quasi-gods able to bestow powers to followers despite being unable to do it lorewise, Sarevok being "resurrected by Bhaal" and becoming a bootlicker(and being incest daddy to keep the bloodline pure... WHICH BLOODLINE? He's not a damn Bhaalspawn anymore and died of old age in Kara-Tur), Viconia suddenly forgetting she defied Lolth and even Shar at the end of ToB(Neutral or Good pc makes sure she slaughters her cult and shrugs with indifference at Shar's reprimands), in this travesty of a game she even betrays her sisterly love for Valas by kidnapping and subjecting children to the same abuse both of them went through in House Devir!
It can be fun to play and good graphically, but the writing and the treatment of lore and legacy characters is absolutely disgusting.
Will only ever play it if they ever remove Viconia and Sarevok(and Balduran too, they really had to shit even on dead characters and bring them back) or make sure they turn into dopplegangers as soon as they drop dead. Cause right now, i want to be nowhere near to it.
I still prefer the original games, and that's largely due to a deeply flawed combat system in BG3. But I think the new title deserves all the praise it's currently getting. A standout among its generation of CRPGs, and this has been a very good stretch for the genre. I think it's unfortunate if you're mired in negativity about the series legacy because of this game. This game, and its praise, means that the series will have a huge lifespan in the gaming community. Some classic, groundbreaking games like the Ultima series have largely vanished at least in the minds of most players. This title ensures a secure place likely for decades.
BG3 is groundbreaking for the genre in a key way. It's sort of like what Quake was for first person shooters. It transforms the 2D+ gameplay of the world into something truly 3D. And I think that's the key aspect it will leave as a legacy. More than any other aspect. Obviously its visual and audio presentation across the board are outstanding. The game has clearly taken a great deal of inspiration for the Souls-like games in terms of environmental exploration. I love that you can stare across a large expanse at some distant object and the plan a path to it.
There are some issues with the story and how the game is structured. Though my issues differ greatly with what others here have said. First of all, where is The Return? Several big moments in the BG series involve a return to some previously traveled area. Every first time player will not forget the return to Candlekeep. But even on subsequent playthroughs, the return to Baldur's Gate--where you're a fugitive--remains exciting on every playthrough. The return to Athkatla and the main world in BG2 after what seems like a lifetime is also an amazing moment. Why create such a richly detailed game world, with choice and consequences, evolving NPC's, and then never have us return to a place that has changed? A huge missed opportunity.
The game is poorly structured in a key way. The opening act is excellent. The second act is too linear. The third act is too open world. Really it's the middle of the game where we should be in Baldur's Gate, inundated with a mess of sidequests. By the time most players get to Act 3, I suspect they'll just want to wrap things up.
I'm not a fan of fifth edition rules. I think it especially suffers with character builds. Classes have just become a meaningless concept in a lot of modern CRPG's and it's unfortunate. Classes should not just be a set of bonuses and skills -- many of which are shared across classes. But something the player has to commit to. Classes should have a roleplaying aspect, and I'm sorry but that means creating some limits. Moreover, a realization I had in playing BG3 and the originals is that staggered level-ups greatly improve the "open world" quality of the game. In BG3 when your party hits levels 4 and 5 it's a huge jump in power, eradicating much of the early game challenge. A similar boost happens at levels 8 and level 12. This means previously challenging encounters quickly become a joke. In the original saga, because there was no single moment where your whole party hit some key benchmark at the same time, your growth in power was more steady, less volatile.
The combat just isn't consistently challenging and I think some larger design decisions have made it un-fixable for Larian. Part of the blame rests on 5th edition rules but a big part rests on Larian. Far too many powerful items in the game that, again, any class can use. Essentially granting players powers based not on a series of build choices they've made over the course of the adventure, but on carrying some gear in your inventory that anybody can use. I would argue the combat is less interesting on average than in Original Sin 2.
A second issue on combat is that the game doesn't have a resting system and additional systems that generate the sort of dangerous, deep dungeon crawl experience that you get in the original games. Consider that the endgame content of BG1 is pretty much all long runs thru dungeons that you either cannot exit at all or that you're at great pains to abort early--Cloakwood, Candlekeep, the finale, the Ice prison, Balduran's Isle, the depths of Durlag's. You're encouraged to plan ahead on these excursions, and to plan to be gone for awhile! And of course this jumps to another level in BG2, with its grand detour. However, because Larian created a camping system that has no distinction between "safe areas" and "dangerous" areas there's only a handful of part where the game truly put you to a dungeon crawl kind of test. And that ought to be the central challenge in these games.
I don't have any issues on the plot or characters. I think it's mostly well done, even the callbacks. Ignominious endings for former companions, even seemingly canon ones, is nothing new to the series. It's super common!