This is why they should give people a choice like in PK and PoE2. Imagine how more people will be satisified. Turn Based is the biggest reason from people on "Nay" side, here, on FB, on Twitter and on Reddit. People tend to dislike the IU, the climat, the 3D graphics, the dialog trees but most of all they dislike Turn-Based Combat. They should really lern from that.
A big nay for me. My biggest reason isn't the turn based combat but the story and characters. Even after ten years the intro to Baldurs Gate sucks me right in and I feel like a part of the world, easily able to roleplay my place in it. The intro to this game felt tryhard, boring, throwing way too many fantasy cliches at you at once, and I dislike greatly the idea of using companions as main characters in a Baldurs Gate game.
That's how I feel anyway. It didn't even come close, didn't even try, to have the same feeling, which I feel could have easily been done without simply copying them.
Real time with pause gives room for tactical execution while also keeping battles fast paced. You can ignore pause and go full throttle on action or pause every round and go full throttle on turn based. You can watch it and it looks like a battle, while in turn based everyone is just standing around when it's not their turn. To me it will always be the inherently superior system. I play enough turn based tactical games, I don't even have the time to spare for another one. You know how much time it takes to get to the upper levels in Disgaea? About a lifetime.
This is why they should give people a choice like in PK and PoE2. Imagine how more people will be satisified. Turn Based is the biggest reason from people on "Nay" side, here, on FB, on Twitter and on Reddit. People tend to dislike the IU, the climat, the 3D graphics, the dialog trees but most of all they dislike Turn-Based Combat. They should really lern from that.
I have created a thread making exactly this request in the Larian BG3 forum.
This is Larian, so I want it to feel like one of their games as much as I want it to have the spirit of Baldur's Gate, because I love how they approach their games.
If anyone else was taking it on and did TB, then I would probably be less okay with it, unless I had a sample of how they approached Turn Based.
Ha ha ha
I am still at: a library of games I have the intention of going through once in the next five years. And luckily I have the self restraint to really start up those new games and finish them! Woot!!!
Oh good, I'm not the only one with an ever-growing backlog of "must play" games that I simply haven't had the time to get started on. XD Part of the problem is that I joined some friends of mine in an MMO (Guild Wars 2, if you're curious) and I've come to the realization that THAT was a huge mistake. I'm a perfectionist sort of player, who wants to do everything, map the entire world, collect ALL the shinies etc., and when you try to apply that to an MMO, who by design is trying its best to NOT let you quit... Well, it's like taking a gambling addict to a casino for his birthday. :P It's a wonder that I can find time for other games in between!
My "must play" backlog has shrunk to be much smaller than my actual list of owned games. Partly due to family commitments, partly due to gog's incessant habit of giveing games away with every major sale they have.
I would be very surprised if this is not a great game but it doesn’t feel like a BG game. They could let CD Projekt make an over the shoulder open world RPG set on the Sword Coast but that would feel like another presumably excellent Witcher game, just like this feels like a Divinity game. When I saw the character bios my heart sank
I like D&D both as a game and a storytelling method and Original Sin 2 is in my Top 10 for RPG's so I have the expectation that it should be a just fine video game on its own merits but everything about the tone and feel I've seen so far is fundamentally wrongheaded as a Baldur's Gate sequel so hey mixed opinion but I'll buy it and try it I guess (or maybe just try it or watch a Youtube)
I like what I saw in the demo, a few other random comments:
I think it is D&D and in that respect it is "Baldurs Gate". Remember Baldurs Gate is first and foremost the city in the Forgotten Realms and the Bhaalspawn saga is just one small part of the city's history. I think a more accurate critique would be it is not a Black Isle/bioware BG game.
Isomeric I think helped with the RPG aspect of the original BG. I think game designers often trade graphics for story, we will see if that happens here, hopefully not.
The mechanics seem pretty faithful to 5e rules and I think it has to be turn based to do that. I think 5e really drives it to turn based with the whole action, bonus, reaction thing going on. 2e rules were more adaptable to real time. Sword Coast Legends tried to do a RTWP adaption of 5e and it was awful, really awful. I guess I don't want a "new RPG", I want a new D&D game, if you have to make it turn based to do that (and I think you do) then I will take turn-based.
Let me preface this by saying I believe many of the changes Larian have implemented are things Bioware most likely would have included themselves in a hypothetical BG3 from the mid-2000s. The fact that BG3 so closely resemble Dragon Age: Origins in style, definitely suggests so to me anyway. I also believe that trying to follow up a genuine classic with a sequel (not just a game loosely connected, but one that by their own account serves as a continuation) is asking for trouble from old time diehards.
We have still seen very little of the game, and what we have seen is an early build. It stands to reason the finished product might be a far different experience than the gameplay demo from PAX East. However, I’d lie if I said I wasn’t disappointed by what they’ve shown so far. There are aspects I’m intrigued by, like the strategic opportunities offered by the game’s verticality and physics, and how the player-controlled character’s lines don’t seem to be voiced when in dialogue.
But I must join my voice with the chorus of people saying this doesn’t “feel” like BG. What that means may be highly subjective of course, and you can argue how important “feel” actually is. To me, however, BG3 lacks the presentational identity of the previous games in the series. The turn-based combat and four-person parties (☹) are one thing, but I’d argue that such changes would be fine if they had nailed the visual and auditory details.
The first thing that jumps to mind is the lack of character portraits. The earlier games had some great art full of character and life, but no longer. Instead, the party is displayed with bland 3d models staring at the player the same way my barely conscious brain views me in the mirror every morning. I’m sure the NPCs’ personalities will come through in dialogues, but it is a pretty glaring omission nonetheless. I’m also dubious about the music. While fine, I find what we have heard a bit weak compared to some of the more sweeping and bombastic tunes of BG and BG2. The same goes for the lack of battle cries during combat. Hopefully, this is something they’re going to add before the game releases because these are the most quoted lines from the originals for a reason.
Speaking of voice acting, I was disappointed with how much of the dialogue is voiced. I mean, I expected it and get why it’s there, it’s been the industry standard for over a decade after all. I’m also convinced Bioware would have gone with full voice acting in the first place had they been able to. But because they couldn’t, they were left with a balance that worked really well and allowed players to immerse themselves in the dialogue in a whole other way. And I have to say, it’s an immersion I personally prefer.
Finally, I don’t like how cluttered the action bar is. It is ugly as sin and takes away from what is happening on the screen above it. The old way of organizing spells and actions was hardly perfect, but at least it was clean for most of your playthrough (outside combat and until your mages start to memorize entire catalogues).
It’s still early, and way soon to properly judge how BG3 is going to turn out, but as of this moment, I’m unfortunately not on board.
I can't imagine getting this invested in whether a game now will be exactly like a game published approximately two decades ago.
So why call it Baldur's Gate 3? that's the contradiction, the company wants to bank on the name without doing any of the work to be a genuinely accepted successor for the people who do care, and it doesn't matter if it was 20 years ago, Citizen Kane was a lot longer ago, do you think people would just blink if someone decided to announced a sequel to that tomorrow? You're not absolved of responsibility by the passage of time, if you want to use *it's* name, nor can you dodge that by saying it doesn't matter, because if it really didn't, then the name doesn't matter and its obviously not a cheap marketing ploy.
Feeling different on the points of contention is fine, implying people with passion care about something that's not worth caring about is asinine.
For the record I could live with turn based combat, I don't hate the style (well except Original Sin 2's combat, which is a problem for this game) but I do dislike the graphics. It resembles a completely unrelated game visually far too much and far more than the games its trying to be a sequel to. I feel they've not even tried to do anything interesting visually for this game outside the cinematic FMVs.
Comments
This is why they should give people a choice like in PK and PoE2. Imagine how more people will be satisified. Turn Based is the biggest reason from people on "Nay" side, here, on FB, on Twitter and on Reddit. People tend to dislike the IU, the climat, the 3D graphics, the dialog trees but most of all they dislike Turn-Based Combat. They should really lern from that.
That's how I feel anyway. It didn't even come close, didn't even try, to have the same feeling, which I feel could have easily been done without simply copying them.
I'm just not interested, at all.
I disliked dos 1+2 alrdy. After i saw that alpha, i was and i am still so extremly disappointed...i had hoped for RtWP and not this TB shit :<
Also graphic, music and stuff is not my taste and i fear the trading will be the same mess than in dos 2.
Also i do not like the indirect dialoges.
Problem is that it is a game with nothing about the Baldur's Gate spirit. Just the name.
If anyone else was taking it on and did TB, then I would probably be less okay with it, unless I had a sample of how they approached Turn Based.
The Second Age of Steam: "I fill my library with games that I'll never play."
I am still at: a library of games I have the intention of going through once in the next five years. And luckily I have the self restraint to really start up those new games and finish them! Woot!!!
this is why i only buy games i intend to play.
So do I but life comes at you fast sometimes.
Plus a lot of games from bundles that had one or two games I really wanted.
I think it is D&D and in that respect it is "Baldurs Gate". Remember Baldurs Gate is first and foremost the city in the Forgotten Realms and the Bhaalspawn saga is just one small part of the city's history. I think a more accurate critique would be it is not a Black Isle/bioware BG game.
Isomeric I think helped with the RPG aspect of the original BG. I think game designers often trade graphics for story, we will see if that happens here, hopefully not.
The mechanics seem pretty faithful to 5e rules and I think it has to be turn based to do that. I think 5e really drives it to turn based with the whole action, bonus, reaction thing going on. 2e rules were more adaptable to real time. Sword Coast Legends tried to do a RTWP adaption of 5e and it was awful, really awful. I guess I don't want a "new RPG", I want a new D&D game, if you have to make it turn based to do that (and I think you do) then I will take turn-based.
Overall I like what I saw on the demo.
We have still seen very little of the game, and what we have seen is an early build. It stands to reason the finished product might be a far different experience than the gameplay demo from PAX East. However, I’d lie if I said I wasn’t disappointed by what they’ve shown so far. There are aspects I’m intrigued by, like the strategic opportunities offered by the game’s verticality and physics, and how the player-controlled character’s lines don’t seem to be voiced when in dialogue.
But I must join my voice with the chorus of people saying this doesn’t “feel” like BG. What that means may be highly subjective of course, and you can argue how important “feel” actually is. To me, however, BG3 lacks the presentational identity of the previous games in the series. The turn-based combat and four-person parties (☹) are one thing, but I’d argue that such changes would be fine if they had nailed the visual and auditory details.
The first thing that jumps to mind is the lack of character portraits. The earlier games had some great art full of character and life, but no longer. Instead, the party is displayed with bland 3d models staring at the player the same way my barely conscious brain views me in the mirror every morning. I’m sure the NPCs’ personalities will come through in dialogues, but it is a pretty glaring omission nonetheless. I’m also dubious about the music. While fine, I find what we have heard a bit weak compared to some of the more sweeping and bombastic tunes of BG and BG2. The same goes for the lack of battle cries during combat. Hopefully, this is something they’re going to add before the game releases because these are the most quoted lines from the originals for a reason.
Speaking of voice acting, I was disappointed with how much of the dialogue is voiced. I mean, I expected it and get why it’s there, it’s been the industry standard for over a decade after all. I’m also convinced Bioware would have gone with full voice acting in the first place had they been able to. But because they couldn’t, they were left with a balance that worked really well and allowed players to immerse themselves in the dialogue in a whole other way. And I have to say, it’s an immersion I personally prefer.
Finally, I don’t like how cluttered the action bar is. It is ugly as sin and takes away from what is happening on the screen above it. The old way of organizing spells and actions was hardly perfect, but at least it was clean for most of your playthrough (outside combat and until your mages start to memorize entire catalogues).
It’s still early, and way soon to properly judge how BG3 is going to turn out, but as of this moment, I’m unfortunately not on board.
I’m really looking forward to this. Larian look like they are doing a smashing job so far from what I’ve seen
So why call it Baldur's Gate 3? that's the contradiction, the company wants to bank on the name without doing any of the work to be a genuinely accepted successor for the people who do care, and it doesn't matter if it was 20 years ago, Citizen Kane was a lot longer ago, do you think people would just blink if someone decided to announced a sequel to that tomorrow? You're not absolved of responsibility by the passage of time, if you want to use *it's* name, nor can you dodge that by saying it doesn't matter, because if it really didn't, then the name doesn't matter and its obviously not a cheap marketing ploy.
Feeling different on the points of contention is fine, implying people with passion care about something that's not worth caring about is asinine.
For the record I could live with turn based combat, I don't hate the style (well except Original Sin 2's combat, which is a problem for this game) but I do dislike the graphics. It resembles a completely unrelated game visually far too much and far more than the games its trying to be a sequel to. I feel they've not even tried to do anything interesting visually for this game outside the cinematic FMVs.