@kanisatha I know it’s a more small scale point but in BG2 when you gained the slayer ability wouldn’t you consider it that your only reward for not turning into the slayer and getting the benefits was that you got the personal satisfaction of not giving in to the evil? I suspect it may be similar in BG3 with the tadpole. You might likely not get any mechanical benefit for ignoring and having it removed beyond the satisfaction that you took the harder path and didn’t give him to the evil.
Being a good aligned player I will likely always try to not use the power of this is the case as I prefer to take the goody goody path lol
I flat out never use the Slayer ability so please pardon me if I am wrong but didn’t using it a lot lower your reputation? Perhaps something similar will be incorporated into BG3 that lowers your rep with good aligned groups ? Maybe that way the reward will be that you don’t get looked upon as a bad guy.
I've been a little worried at the "deal with a devil" angle shown in the last preview. The devil implies that the only way to avoid becoming a mind flayer is to make the deal. I guess he could be lying about that, but wasn't that a lawful evil devil? (Lawful evil can be taken at its word and doesn't lie, although there's always a catch, a loophole, or something hidden in the fine print.)
My lawful good character would flatly refuse to make the deal. It's looking like my character would actually consider an honor suicide as the only way out. I imagine that's a game over, and the game probably wouldn't even let me choose that.
I'm not seeing how they're going to write their way out of this corner with their lawful good players. If the game actually takes over my character at some point with no choice other than to click "Okay, I'll take the deal" to stop the ceremorphosis, that's going to be a total deal-breaker for me. I'll "commit suicide" by exiting the game and never starting it back. It'll be the equivalent of walking away from the table and never returning to that game master's house again.
On a mechanics note, the combat still looks identical to Divinity: Original Sin to me. It's so gosh darned slow, and makes every battle into a puzzle that you have to solve. I've been much more in the mood for fast paced action in my games in recent years. So the combat style could turn me off to it as well.
I'm afraid I remain on the fence with this game. I still haven't made up my mind whether to pay full price for it. I'm going to be looking forward to reading reviews and impressions when it goes into full release.
@kanisatha I know it’s a more small scale point but in BG2 when you gained the slayer ability wouldn’t you consider it that your only reward for not turning into the slayer and getting the benefits was that you got the personal satisfaction of not giving in to the evil? I suspect it may be similar in BG3 with the tadpole. You might likely not get any mechanical benefit for ignoring and having it removed beyond the satisfaction that you took the harder path and didn’t give him to the evil.
Being a good aligned player I will likely always try to not use the power of this is the case as I prefer to take the goody goody path lol
I flat out never use the Slayer ability so please pardon me if I am wrong but didn’t using it a lot lower your reputation? Perhaps something similar will be incorporated into BG3 that lowers your rep with good aligned groups ? Maybe that way the reward will be that you don’t get looked upon as a bad guy.
@byrne20 you are correct about the slayer ability in BG2, and FYI I also have never ever used that ability in any of my playthroughs. The big difference is that happens later in the second game of the series. So you are playing through all of BG1 and much of Bg2 without it coming up. In Bg3, it is front and center, right from the very first moment of the game.
Btw, I had the same reaction to the spirit eater thing in NwN. Never ever accepted it and played only with the mod that removes it from the game.
I'm not seeing how they're going to write their way out of this corner with their lawful good players. If the game actually takes over my character at some point with no choice other than to click "Okay, I'll take the deal" to stop the ceremorphosis, that's going to be a total deal-breaker for me. I'll "commit suicide" by exiting the game and never starting it back. It'll be the equivalent of walking away from the table and never returning to that game master's house again.
On a mechanics note, the combat still looks identical to Divinity: Original Sin to me. It's so gosh darned slow, and makes every battle into a puzzle that you have to solve. I've been much more in the mood for fast paced action in my games in recent years. So the combat style could turn me off to it as well.
I agree. I think LG characters are going to have a serious problem, and a well-written game should not allow for that. Even my NG character is likely going to have a big problem, including possibly even not having enough non-evil origin companions covering a balanced spread of party roles available to fill out my party.
The vampire spawn will definitely get a stake through his heart from me, and Shadow Heart should consider herself lucky that I may only just kick her out of my camp. Gale may be good-aligned, but he is the very epitome of the annoying hipster.
Combat also I agree. It's way too slow and tedious as it currently stands. What all the TB combat fans want to describe as "tactical" and "strategy" is just annoyingly stupid and a waste of my time to me. For me, good combat is when I don't have to pre-buff my characters much at all, don't have to cast too many spells within combat (spell use outside of combat is wonderful), and don't have to use too many active abilities.
@kanisatha another way that I personally justify why they make it rewarding to follow the evil path is because historically as far as I could see it was always much less rewarding to play the game evil. I haven’t made many attempts because I always wanted to play as a good character but from what I’ve seen/heard it’s a much easier ride in BG1/2 to play as a good aligned character. You get much better prices in shops due to reputation being high. I know Charisma also helps but please correct me if an evil aligned party could get better shop prices than a total baby face team with a 20 reputation and a character leading the team with a nice 18 Charisma.
Another thing that stands out is that there always just seemed to be more good choice outcomes in quests. It always seemed to me that the good guys got decent rewards and were not hated. It just always seemed generally much harder to play an evil character to me.
So yeah I always used that as a justification for why a bad aligned team should also get some advantages (in BG2 the slayer form or in BG3 the tadpole powers). I will probably take a similar approach in BG3 as I’m sure there will be plenty of rewards for being a decent person in terms of reputation and that kind of thing
@BelgarathMTH "I'm not seeing how they're going to write their way out of this corner with their lawful good players. If the game actually takes over my character at some point with no choice other than to click "Okay, I'll take the deal" to stop the ceremorphosis, that's going to be a total deal-breaker for me. I'll "commit suicide" by exiting the game and never starting it back. It'll be the equivalent of walking away from the table and never returning to that game master's house again."
At that point, Larian will already have your money and won't really care whether you play or not. You'll be another stat point they can point to for their sales and say, "Look at all the units we solved. Let's make the next "Baldur's Gate" the same way!"
@BelgarathMTH wrote - “I'm afraid I remain on the fence with this game. I still haven't made up my mind whether to pay full price for it. I'm going to be looking forward to reading reviews and impressions when it goes into full release.”
This is a very reasonable course of action. At the end of the day you don’t need to get the game straight away when it comes out. You can check out the reviews critic/or player. And if you still think it’s not for you or it’s not worth full price after that then you won’t waste your money on something you personally won’t enjoy. Sounds like a smart plan to me
I've been a little worried at the "deal with a devil" angle shown in the last preview. The devil implies that the only way to avoid becoming a mind flayer is to make the deal. I guess he could be lying about that, but wasn't that a lawful evil devil? (Lawful evil can be taken at its word and doesn't lie, although there's always a catch, a loophole, or something hidden in the fine print.)
My lawful good character would flatly refuse to make the deal. It's looking like my character would actually consider an honor suicide as the only way out. I imagine that's a game over, and the game probably wouldn't even let me choose that.
I'm not seeing how they're going to write their way out of this corner with their lawful good players. If the game actually takes over my character at some point with no choice other than to click "Okay, I'll take the deal" to stop the ceremorphosis, that's going to be a total deal-breaker for me. I'll "commit suicide" by exiting the game and never starting it back. It'll be the equivalent of walking away from the table and never returning to that game master's house again.
On a mechanics note, the combat still looks identical to Divinity: Original Sin to me. It's so gosh darned slow, and makes every battle into a puzzle that you have to solve. I've been much more in the mood for fast paced action in my games in recent years. So the combat style could turn me off to it as well.
I'm afraid I remain on the fence with this game. I still haven't made up my mind whether to pay full price for it. I'm going to be looking forward to reading reviews and impressions when it goes into full release.
Not sure if I remember it correctly, but I think Raphael suggested that there may be other methods to stop the tadpool from taking over your body (well, he also told that each of those methods will eventually fail, bringing your character back to him, but that could just be him playing mind games). I bet there will be couple of ways to stop ceremorphosis, some of them will be fitting for good characters. It may be that generally playing a good aligned character will be more challenging in BG3 but in that case, I accept the challenge ?
@kanisatha another way that I personally justify why they make it rewarding to follow the evil path is because historically as far as I could see it was always much less rewarding to play the game evil. I haven’t made many attempts because I always wanted to play as a good character but from what I’ve seen/heard it’s a much easier ride in BG1/2 to play as a good aligned character. You get much better prices in shops due to reputation being high. I know Charisma also helps but please correct me if an evil aligned party could get better shop prices than a total baby face team with a 20 reputation and a character leading the team with a nice 18 Charisma.
Another thing that stands out is that there always just seemed to be more good choice outcomes in quests. It always seemed to me that the good guys got decent rewards and were not hated. It just always seemed generally much harder to play an evil character to me.
So yeah I always used that as a justification for why a bad aligned team should also get some advantages (in BG2 the slayer form or in BG3 the tadpole powers). I will probably take a similar approach in BG3 as I’m sure there will be plenty of rewards for being a decent person in terms of reputation and that kind of thing
Sure, but I would say this is merely an artifact of the setting being a "good"-aligned setting. In a good-aligned setting, people are going to expect you to be good, so things like a good reputation getting you better prices from merchants makes total sense in the context of that setting. By contrast, I am sure that if a game was set in Zhentil Keep or Thay or the Underdark or the lower planes, being evil-aligned will help you a great deal.
I've been a little worried at the "deal with a devil" angle shown in the last preview. The devil implies that the only way to avoid becoming a mind flayer is to make the deal. I guess he could be lying about that, but wasn't that a lawful evil devil? (Lawful evil can be taken at its word and doesn't lie, although there's always a catch, a loophole, or something hidden in the fine print.)
My lawful good character would flatly refuse to make the deal. It's looking like my character would actually consider an honor suicide as the only way out. I imagine that's a game over, and the game probably wouldn't even let me choose that.
I'm not seeing how they're going to write their way out of this corner with their lawful good players. If the game actually takes over my character at some point with no choice other than to click "Okay, I'll take the deal" to stop the ceremorphosis, that's going to be a total deal-breaker for me. I'll "commit suicide" by exiting the game and never starting it back. It'll be the equivalent of walking away from the table and never returning to that game master's house again.
On a mechanics note, the combat still looks identical to Divinity: Original Sin to me. It's so gosh darned slow, and makes every battle into a puzzle that you have to solve. I've been much more in the mood for fast paced action in my games in recent years. So the combat style could turn me off to it as well.
I'm afraid I remain on the fence with this game. I still haven't made up my mind whether to pay full price for it. I'm going to be looking forward to reading reviews and impressions when it goes into full release.
Not sure if I remember it correctly, but I think Raphael suggested that there may be other methods to stop the tadpool from taking over your body (well, he also told that each of those methods will eventually fail, bringing your character back to him, but that could just be him playing mind games). I bet there will be couple of ways to stop ceremorphosis, some of them will be fitting for good characters. It may be that generally playing a good aligned character will be more challenging in BG3 but in that case, I accept the challenge ?
This. It doesnt make a lot of sense to assume about story beats we havent seen in the game or not. It's likely there will be some approach for good aligned characters.
Even if there isnt, the precedent was set when BG2 only allowed two ways to get to spellhold: Vampires or Shadow Thieves.
I think the preoccupation that a fantasy RPG isn't going to have a strong option for a good playthrough is overblown. I'm pretty sure Larian is going to cater to what is the main way most people play RPG's.
I'm sure there will be some Obsidian-style, not totally black & white choices. But come on, these games always have something that approaches a lawful good playstyle. And anyone familiar with their work in the OS games knows this is true.
Lots of good arguments here already explaining the nays... and I've been in a discussion on YouTube as well. Wow... the dnd tabletop puritans are some next level *****.... and Im pretty sure that most of them didnt own an original copy of the game back in 98/99
I'll just copy/paste what I told them.
please.... saying it was baldurs gate is wrong? Baldurs Gate is what it is... and thats what people learned to enjoy. No one enjoys rtwp? How do you explain the popularity of Pathfinder Kingmaker or Pillars of Eternity? These games were made honoring Baldurs Gate and are more spiritual successors to BG than the third one will ever be. Hey, we live in the virtual age, if you can theorize it, you can work it out in code... bg3 couldve been both rtwp and turnbased..
Ill say it again: this game became big due to people like myself buying it. If only tabletop dnd players went for it, we would have never gotten BG2 SoA and ToB. This game could be made to cater to both our needs, its a disgrace that it hasnt been. Larian truly isnt the studio for a BG, but fine...
But ummmmm.. how many here owned or still own the original Baldur's Gate, acquired at the time it got released... ? I'm really curious... if you don't belong to this group, which I do belong to, dont presume to tell me what baldurs gate should be like. At any rate... I'll be enjoying Pathfinder and Pillars from now on, who manage to keep both rtwp and turnbased players happy... something larian cant.. or even worse, wont due to nerd dnd elitism. Gimme a break.
So yeah... considering that the last sentence of that post might actually be the case, dnd nerd elitism, I find it quite pathetic. I'd like to add that the replay-value of a game is, first of all, tied to how good the story is, but also to convenience. I dont expect BG3 to have an impact like Final Fantasy 7 or 10 did, games that were so good storywise that I literally wished they didn't end and desired to play them again, despite all the hours of turnbased fights.
Oh well.. as I said, ill enjoy PF and Pillars from now on. And BG and IWD EE. I'll probably also acquire NWN since I see people are getting back into it and content is being created. If I could just ask you guys at beamdog to develop your own isometric games based on older DND rulesets, if possible... you have got a customer in me
@Djasko_Amsterdam Well put. I'd caution the use of the word "Nazi" to refer to anything other than actual nazism though. People being elitist about their hobbies is not equivalent to ethnic cleansing and the two should never be grouped together. There's been more than enough of that in this thread.
For a more practical reason, insulting other forumites is against the rules and can get you banned. I don't think you intended that towards any specific forumites, you were talking about youtube after all, but better safe than sorry.
@Djasko_Amsterdam Well put. I'd caution the use of the word "Nazi" to refer to anything other than actual nazism though. People being elitist about their hobbies is not equivalent to ethnic cleansing and the two should never be grouped together. There's been more than enough of that in this thread.
For a more practical reason, insulting other forumites is against the rules and can get you banned. I don't think you intended that towards any specific forumites, you were talking about youtube after all, but better safe than sorry.
Yeah my frustration got the better of me there, deleted the word. Cheers.
@Djasko_Amsterdam Not really understand why you posted your hot-headed response to whatever some "elitist D&D guys" would have told you in youtube here; in a thread in another forum where we´re talking about other subjects, but ... yay non-elitism? I think
Most of the changes in the 5th edition of D&D were to make it more inclusive and newbie-friendly, to wipe out the tag of a cultist club of Tabletop games. I hope this game will follow that spirit and made a game that many people will enjoy, not only a particular group with particular preferences.
I'm late to the party. I originally voted "nay" based on the rather dark and gory trailer, and then decided to stay out of all the speculations during the last months until more information was available.
I had no opinion on turn-based combat, because I hadn't played any turn-based cRPGs yet. Now I'm playing D:OS EE and have decided that, while the combat style takes getting used to, I don't dislike it. I tend to get distracted when I have to micromanage several party members, and a frequently hit pause button is breaking immersion at least as much as turns. So, turn-based combat seems to have its advantages.
I have also taken the time to watch some of the now available videos on gameplay and character creation, and I'm liking what I've seen so far. The design is beautiful, the highly interactive world looks interesting, and I love the details like showing you the math (hovering over an enemy and seeing the probability of a successful hit, for example), because I'm not that good at calculating probabilities based on dice rolls in my head, or that good at the rules.
I'm a bit worried about the choice of companions, because I'm a goody-two-shoes kind of player and hope for a few non-evil companions. On the other hand, not all details are out yet, and it's okay if a game makes me step out of my comfort zone a bit. Otherwise I'd never see or do anything new.
So, I'm curious, positively surprised, and hoping I won't need a new laptop to handle the graphics.
I'm a nay. I hate the plot. I'm really not interested in playing a game of D&D that starts with me flying on a spaceship to hell with a tadpole in my brain.
I'm a nay. I hate the plot. I'm really not interested in playing a game of D&D that starts with me flying on a spaceship to hell with a tadpole in my brain.
I'm not really a big fan of the "epic stakes out the gate!" approach BG3 has taken so far too, but the beauty of the game and the chance that this looks like it'll turn out to be an excellent 5E D&D game means I'm taking the plunge.
I was concerned about the plot, too, but then I thought that I wasn't too happy about being a Bhaalspawn either, or having my soul stolen by an evil wizard, and still enjoyed BG1 and 2.
So, I guess that trying to get rid of an invasive, mind-controlling tadpole is not going to be that different.
I'm a nay. I hate the plot. I'm really not interested in playing a game of D&D that starts with me flying on a spaceship to hell with a tadpole in my brain.
yeah this is way to over the top for a level 1 character.
I'm a nay. I hate the plot. I'm really not interested in playing a game of D&D that starts with me flying on a spaceship to hell with a tadpole in my brain.
yeah this is way to over the top for a level 1 character.
I can see Reevor now. "Charname! There's a pack of Tarrasques in the storehouse again! Those cats are lazy bums!"
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'm a nay. I hate the plot. I'm really not interested in playing a game of D&D that starts with me flying on a spaceship to hell with a tadpole in my brain.
yeah this is way to over the top for a level 1 character.
XD You literally stay in Hell the first 10 minutes of the game, mingle with a few mephitis and move along to fight goblins and bandits and the usual lvl 1 stuff...
I'm a nay. I hate the plot. I'm really not interested in playing a game of D&D that starts with me flying on a spaceship to hell with a tadpole in my brain.
yeah this is way to over the top for a level 1 character.
XD You literally stay in Hell the first 10 minutes of the game, mingle with a few mephitis and move along to fight goblins and bandits and the usual lvl 1 stuff...
and that causes a pacing problem. as now you have that over the top opening and then you go do level 1 adventuring later. it's jarring.
BG3 would have helped themselves greatly by starting the game slow. Make the end of Act 1 getting caught and start what is now the opening scene, if that's something they want to stick with. All this epic flashiness is too much, too fast, and does a lot to hurt the opening. I want to get into the world slowly and be excited to explore it.
@megamike15 i had no pacing issue caused by this. As people have said, you only fight weak mephits. Other than that you start and are just escaping and lucky that you don’t get caught in a fight with something stronger.
I enjoyed the start and didn’t find pacing to be an issue at all. I found that if anything once I got out into the world it just made me even more interested. Each to their own I guess though ay.
It´s like a trailer at what is to come, dragons, demons, ilithids... Makes you feel you are in D&D... without making you enter into a suicide fight at level 1. You are merely passing by, take a look in awe and then run away from there until you level up ten levels or so
I don't have the game, but from what I've seen on several "let's play", the prologue is short and clearly a moment when our character undergoes a situation that completely overwhelms him.
Afterwards the character regains control but his life is completely turned upside down by what happened and without any reference (no known person, the tadpole in the brain).
For me it's very close to Baldur's Gate 1, we witness a fight between Gorion and Sarevok that overwhelms us. Then one finds oneself to have the control but of a life upset and without reference mark (orphan, no more access to Candlekeep, bounty hunters in our search, etc). Except Imoen.
Obviously the nautiloid is more epic (less boring?) than Candlekeep, but otherwise I see many similarities.
I too think that the game is a bit too "Epic" too fast in how it approaches things, but the prologue isn't really at fault for that. I mean, sure, it's still a little bit too epic what with fighting devils, even if they're "just" imps, at level one (my problem with it if anything was that it had the setting of a big three-way battle between the mindflayers, the devils, and the Gith dragonriders and yet you waltz your way through it like nothing is happening, it was very jarring up until the end scene where it at least finally feels like something is at stake (for those who haven't played it: the devil's have basically won at that point and is overwhelming the ship). I mean, I get it, it's the tutorial level, and it needs to be like that for the sake of learning, but at the same time they want to start in medias res "Because that is how you make things exciting" but it never works out when games does that, it just ends up feeling off and fabricated to me) but it's really not like you're running around beating arch-devils and illithids to death with your twenty inch Club of +2 Dicking like a maniac Superman.
So to sum up without the huge mid-text ramble: Yes, I'm still very not 100% certain of their ability to narratively weigh the power level, particularly in relation to the DnD custom/standard in a wider sense, but the prologue is not as egregious about this as one might assume from hearing about it or watching the cut scenes.
It´s like a trailer at what is to come, dragons, demons, ilithids... Makes you feel you are in D&D... without making you enter into a suicide fight at level 1. You are merely passing by, take a look in awe and then run away from there until you level up ten levels or so
But the PC is literally right in the middle of all those extremely dangerous foes. You are literally surrounded by mind flayers, red dragons, and powerful devils. So to just say hey the PC got lucky and managed to escape is not at all realistic or believable. Imagine if Candlekeep had been surrounded by similar foes at the beginning of BG1 and yet somehow Charname managed to survive and escape. Most people would have considered that to be ridiculous BS. We consider Charname to have been lucky he survived because he survived wolves, not mind flayers.
Comments
Being a good aligned player I will likely always try to not use the power of this is the case as I prefer to take the goody goody path lol
I flat out never use the Slayer ability so please pardon me if I am wrong but didn’t using it a lot lower your reputation? Perhaps something similar will be incorporated into BG3 that lowers your rep with good aligned groups ? Maybe that way the reward will be that you don’t get looked upon as a bad guy.
My lawful good character would flatly refuse to make the deal. It's looking like my character would actually consider an honor suicide as the only way out. I imagine that's a game over, and the game probably wouldn't even let me choose that.
I'm not seeing how they're going to write their way out of this corner with their lawful good players. If the game actually takes over my character at some point with no choice other than to click "Okay, I'll take the deal" to stop the ceremorphosis, that's going to be a total deal-breaker for me. I'll "commit suicide" by exiting the game and never starting it back. It'll be the equivalent of walking away from the table and never returning to that game master's house again.
On a mechanics note, the combat still looks identical to Divinity: Original Sin to me. It's so gosh darned slow, and makes every battle into a puzzle that you have to solve. I've been much more in the mood for fast paced action in my games in recent years. So the combat style could turn me off to it as well.
I'm afraid I remain on the fence with this game. I still haven't made up my mind whether to pay full price for it. I'm going to be looking forward to reading reviews and impressions when it goes into full release.
@byrne20 you are correct about the slayer ability in BG2, and FYI I also have never ever used that ability in any of my playthroughs. The big difference is that happens later in the second game of the series. So you are playing through all of BG1 and much of Bg2 without it coming up. In Bg3, it is front and center, right from the very first moment of the game.
Btw, I had the same reaction to the spirit eater thing in NwN. Never ever accepted it and played only with the mod that removes it from the game.
I agree. I think LG characters are going to have a serious problem, and a well-written game should not allow for that. Even my NG character is likely going to have a big problem, including possibly even not having enough non-evil origin companions covering a balanced spread of party roles available to fill out my party.
The vampire spawn will definitely get a stake through his heart from me, and Shadow Heart should consider herself lucky that I may only just kick her out of my camp. Gale may be good-aligned, but he is the very epitome of the annoying hipster.
Combat also I agree. It's way too slow and tedious as it currently stands. What all the TB combat fans want to describe as "tactical" and "strategy" is just annoyingly stupid and a waste of my time to me. For me, good combat is when I don't have to pre-buff my characters much at all, don't have to cast too many spells within combat (spell use outside of combat is wonderful), and don't have to use too many active abilities.
Another thing that stands out is that there always just seemed to be more good choice outcomes in quests. It always seemed to me that the good guys got decent rewards and were not hated. It just always seemed generally much harder to play an evil character to me.
So yeah I always used that as a justification for why a bad aligned team should also get some advantages (in BG2 the slayer form or in BG3 the tadpole powers). I will probably take a similar approach in BG3 as I’m sure there will be plenty of rewards for being a decent person in terms of reputation and that kind of thing
At that point, Larian will already have your money and won't really care whether you play or not. You'll be another stat point they can point to for their sales and say, "Look at all the units we solved. Let's make the next "Baldur's Gate" the same way!"
This is a very reasonable course of action. At the end of the day you don’t need to get the game straight away when it comes out. You can check out the reviews critic/or player. And if you still think it’s not for you or it’s not worth full price after that then you won’t waste your money on something you personally won’t enjoy. Sounds like a smart plan to me
Not sure if I remember it correctly, but I think Raphael suggested that there may be other methods to stop the tadpool from taking over your body (well, he also told that each of those methods will eventually fail, bringing your character back to him, but that could just be him playing mind games). I bet there will be couple of ways to stop ceremorphosis, some of them will be fitting for good characters. It may be that generally playing a good aligned character will be more challenging in BG3 but in that case, I accept the challenge ?
This. It doesnt make a lot of sense to assume about story beats we havent seen in the game or not. It's likely there will be some approach for good aligned characters.
Even if there isnt, the precedent was set when BG2 only allowed two ways to get to spellhold: Vampires or Shadow Thieves.
I'm sure there will be some Obsidian-style, not totally black & white choices. But come on, these games always have something that approaches a lawful good playstyle. And anyone familiar with their work in the OS games knows this is true.
Lots of good arguments here already explaining the nays... and I've been in a discussion on YouTube as well. Wow... the dnd tabletop puritans are some next level *****.... and Im pretty sure that most of them didnt own an original copy of the game back in 98/99
I'll just copy/paste what I told them.
please.... saying it was baldurs gate is wrong? Baldurs Gate is what it is... and thats what people learned to enjoy. No one enjoys rtwp? How do you explain the popularity of Pathfinder Kingmaker or Pillars of Eternity? These games were made honoring Baldurs Gate and are more spiritual successors to BG than the third one will ever be. Hey, we live in the virtual age, if you can theorize it, you can work it out in code... bg3 couldve been both rtwp and turnbased..
Ill say it again: this game became big due to people like myself buying it. If only tabletop dnd players went for it, we would have never gotten BG2 SoA and ToB. This game could be made to cater to both our needs, its a disgrace that it hasnt been. Larian truly isnt the studio for a BG, but fine...
But ummmmm.. how many here owned or still own the original Baldur's Gate, acquired at the time it got released... ? I'm really curious... if you don't belong to this group, which I do belong to, dont presume to tell me what baldurs gate should be like. At any rate... I'll be enjoying Pathfinder and Pillars from now on, who manage to keep both rtwp and turnbased players happy... something larian cant.. or even worse, wont due to nerd dnd elitism. Gimme a break.
So yeah... considering that the last sentence of that post might actually be the case, dnd nerd elitism, I find it quite pathetic. I'd like to add that the replay-value of a game is, first of all, tied to how good the story is, but also to convenience. I dont expect BG3 to have an impact like Final Fantasy 7 or 10 did, games that were so good storywise that I literally wished they didn't end and desired to play them again, despite all the hours of turnbased fights.
Oh well.. as I said, ill enjoy PF and Pillars from now on. And BG and IWD EE. I'll probably also acquire NWN since I see people are getting back into it and content is being created. If I could just ask you guys at beamdog to develop your own isometric games based on older DND rulesets, if possible... you have got a customer in me
For a more practical reason, insulting other forumites is against the rules and can get you banned. I don't think you intended that towards any specific forumites, you were talking about youtube after all, but better safe than sorry.
Yeah my frustration got the better of me there, deleted the word. Cheers.
Most of the changes in the 5th edition of D&D were to make it more inclusive and newbie-friendly, to wipe out the tag of a cultist club of Tabletop games. I hope this game will follow that spirit and made a game that many people will enjoy, not only a particular group with particular preferences.
I had no opinion on turn-based combat, because I hadn't played any turn-based cRPGs yet. Now I'm playing D:OS EE and have decided that, while the combat style takes getting used to, I don't dislike it. I tend to get distracted when I have to micromanage several party members, and a frequently hit pause button is breaking immersion at least as much as turns. So, turn-based combat seems to have its advantages.
I have also taken the time to watch some of the now available videos on gameplay and character creation, and I'm liking what I've seen so far. The design is beautiful, the highly interactive world looks interesting, and I love the details like showing you the math (hovering over an enemy and seeing the probability of a successful hit, for example), because I'm not that good at calculating probabilities based on dice rolls in my head, or that good at the rules.
I'm a bit worried about the choice of companions, because I'm a goody-two-shoes kind of player and hope for a few non-evil companions. On the other hand, not all details are out yet, and it's okay if a game makes me step out of my comfort zone a bit. Otherwise I'd never see or do anything new.
So, I'm curious, positively surprised, and hoping I won't need a new laptop to handle the graphics.
I'm not really a big fan of the "epic stakes out the gate!" approach BG3 has taken so far too, but the beauty of the game and the chance that this looks like it'll turn out to be an excellent 5E D&D game means I'm taking the plunge.
So, I guess that trying to get rid of an invasive, mind-controlling tadpole is not going to be that different.
yeah this is way to over the top for a level 1 character.
I can see Reevor now. "Charname! There's a pack of Tarrasques in the storehouse again! Those cats are lazy bums!"
Hmmmm...!!
XD You literally stay in Hell the first 10 minutes of the game, mingle with a few mephitis and move along to fight goblins and bandits and the usual lvl 1 stuff...
and that causes a pacing problem. as now you have that over the top opening and then you go do level 1 adventuring later. it's jarring.
I enjoyed the start and didn’t find pacing to be an issue at all. I found that if anything once I got out into the world it just made me even more interested. Each to their own I guess though ay.
Afterwards the character regains control but his life is completely turned upside down by what happened and without any reference (no known person, the tadpole in the brain).
For me it's very close to Baldur's Gate 1, we witness a fight between Gorion and Sarevok that overwhelms us. Then one finds oneself to have the control but of a life upset and without reference mark (orphan, no more access to Candlekeep, bounty hunters in our search, etc). Except Imoen.
Obviously the nautiloid is more epic (less boring?) than Candlekeep, but otherwise I see many similarities.
So to sum up without the huge mid-text ramble: Yes, I'm still very not 100% certain of their ability to narratively weigh the power level, particularly in relation to the DnD custom/standard in a wider sense, but the prologue is not as egregious about this as one might assume from hearing about it or watching the cut scenes.