Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Categories

Dark Dreams of Furiae - a new module for NWN:EE! Buy now
Attention, new and old users! Please read the new rules of conduct for the forums, and we hope you enjoy your stay!

The problem with BG3 [CRITICISM ONLY THREAD]

124

Comments

  • energisedcamelenergisedcamel Member Posts: 87
    Not related to the current food conversation, and I know this is like a really minor thing, but I wish they would change the UI to more closely resemble classic BG, with the character portraits on the side, character sheets, inventory on the right, etc. I think that would be a relatively easy way to make it feel more like the older games and less like DOS2. Little nostalgic things like that would be so easy to change. Is there any functional reason why they shouldn't do that, that I'm unaware of? I admittedly know nothing about making a game, so maybe there's a good functional reason

    WarChiefZekeRedRodent
  • kanisathakanisatha Member Posts: 1,222
    I only asked to share criticism on things you really tried in the game, not based on YT videos or internet sites, or we'd have a SoD situation all over again.
    So then criticism only from people who have bought the game, which also means mostly only from people who like the game and not really critics of the game? Because the overwhelming majority of critics will have not bought the game. Just want to be clear of the new rules on this subforum to avoid being in violation of them.

    kaja8Bumba
  • kanisathakanisatha Member Posts: 1,222
    I posted those questions as critical questions, and I'm quite sure @WarChiefZeke understood and appreciated where I was coming from.

    WarChiefZekeThacoBell
  • kanisathakanisatha Member Posts: 1,222
    Back to my questions for you, @WarChiefZeke:

    Tadpole
    At any point in the EA, does using the tadpole result in any meaningful negative consequences for you?
    Does NOT using the tadpole result in any meaningful benefits or rewards?

    Combat
    Does killing (or otherwise harming, including robbing) innocents result in any meaningful negative consequences?
    Does evading combat provide any XPs?

    Movement
    Many in the Larian forum are complaining about how cumbersome it is to move your whole party and to get companions to follow you, especially through hazardous areas without anyone taking damage. Your thoughts?

    Companions
    Any further news on my very first question some days ago, which was whether, when consistently choosing the "good" options and decisions, companions like Shadowheart, Astarion, and Lae'zal eventually get mad at you or at least end up with a poor regard for you?

    WarChiefZeke
  • WarChiefZekeWarChiefZeke Member Posts: 2,625
    edited October 2020
    Just a fair warning, to answer these questions from @kanisatha I have to give some small spoilers. If the mods want to take this post and put it in the spoiler thread that's cool.

    Tadpole
    Oh yeah, there are consequences to using it. Positive consequences, the hint of negative consequences down the road, and the introduction of a certain character. I can only imagine this isn't gonna turn out well for you. If you use them a lot a lot, even the dialogue options change.

    Combat
    Right now you lose out on combat exp and get nothing in return for skipping some battles. This has been a topic of major criticism and will likely be changed.

    If you harm an innocent you will get surrounded by anyone who noticed you and you will have to talk, bribe, or fight your way out. It will likely have lasting consequences later on as well.

    Movement
    It's basically an EA thing. Companions wont jump to follow you when they should, or other minor pathfinding issues. All in all it's not terrible.

    Companions
    It won't kill your chances with them to do good deeds as long as you talk to them the right way and, annoyingly, pass certain dice rolls. This bothers me since companion influence shouldnt depend on luck.

    I actually got a bit more into the Shadowheart romance the other night and it was surprisingly wholesome.

    JuliusBorisovkanisathaThacoBell
  • AmmarAmmar Member Posts: 1,178
    I am not *that* far in, but what is everyone's experience with enemies dropping the equipment they use in combat or not? In the very first fight against the Imps I noticed that the Imp who shot at me with a crossbow or bow actually dropped a sword - but not the ranged weapon.

  • SjerrieSjerrie Member Posts: 1,204
    @Bumba perhaps a spoiler tag should be put around the sentence mentioning that "super prodigy"?

    ThacoBellBumba
  • ilduderinoilduderino Member Posts: 741
    Yartar ... brings back good memories of the Savage Frontier games

  • DunskiDunski Member Posts: 13
    edited October 2020
    @Bumba Yeah, Larian's type of storytelling caters to the lowest common denominator who just needs everything to be crazy and extreme. Nothing's down to earth, nothing's believable, everything is the wildest and most trope-filled thing that Larian could think of. It reads like bad fanfic, the kind where you can tell that the story does take place in a certain universe but the writer completely failed to capture the spirit and nuance of the setting because they just wanted to make it as wild as possible. I fully expect BG3 to feature a dragon you have to fight by level 6 at the latest, and probably time travel and slaying several gods before the level 10 cap.

    Post edited by Dunski on
    megamike15Bumbakanisatha
  • BumbaBumba Member Posts: 7
    @Sjerrie sorry, i'll edit it as soon as possible

    ThacoBellSjerrie
  • BumbaBumba Member Posts: 7
    I also noticed some of the monsters are thrown there without following lore criteria... many streams i've seen show fights against spectators in random caves or locations in the underdark.
    Aren't spectators supposed to be guardians summoned to guard specific locations?
    For example, in BG2, the spectator had been bound and was guarding an important chest.

    Some encounters feel like as if Larian had designed the combat terrain and then shoved some random enemies in it.

    SjerrieWarChiefZeke
  • SjerrieSjerrie Member Posts: 1,204
    @Bumba from the MM:
    A summoned spectator guards a location or a treasure of its summoner's choice for 101 years, allowing no creature but its summoner to enter the area or access the item, unless the summoner instructed otherwise. If the item is stolen or destroyed before the years have all passed, a summoned spectator vanishes. It otherwise never abandons its post.
    ...
    When a spectator has fulfilled its service, it is free to do as it pleases. Many take up residence in the places they previously guarded, especially if their summoners have died. With the spectator's loss of purpose, the flickers of madness it displayed during its servitude flourish.

    So I guess they could be the maddened ones..?

  • JuliusBorisovJuliusBorisov Member, Administrator, Moderator, Developer Posts: 21,700
    Bumba wrote: »
    I also noticed some of the monsters are thrown there without following lore criteria... many streams i've seen show fights against spectators in random caves or locations in the underdark.
    Aren't spectators supposed to be guardians summoned to guard specific locations?
    For example, in BG2, the spectator had been bound and was guarding an important chest.

    Some encounters feel like as if Larian had designed the combat terrain and then shoved some random enemies in it.

    Hmm, this is the best example of a bad impression based on the YT video. The spectator part is a big spoiler for a very interesting quest. Something that cannot be judged without playing the game at all.

    Sjerrie
  • ThacoBellThacoBell Member Posts: 12,009
    Bumba wrote: »
    I also noticed some of the monsters are thrown there without following lore criteria... many streams i've seen show fights against spectators in random caves or locations in the underdark.
    Aren't spectators supposed to be guardians summoned to guard specific locations?
    For example, in BG2, the spectator had been bound and was guarding an important chest.

    Some encounters feel like as if Larian had designed the combat terrain and then shoved some random enemies in it.

    Hmm, this is the best example of a bad impression based on the YT video. The spectator part is a big spoiler for a very interesting quest. Something that cannot be judged without playing the game at all.

    You keep making claims like this, but I don't see how it would make any difference. What's on screen doesn't change if your holding a controller or not. Your eyes works whether you're clicking mouse or not. Do journal entries and dialogue somehow change if you aren't the one playing?

    megamike15Ammar
  • ArviaArvia Member, Moderator Posts: 1,635
    ThacoBell wrote: »
    Bumba wrote: »
    I also noticed some of the monsters are thrown there without following lore criteria... many streams i've seen show fights against spectators in random caves or locations in the underdark.
    Aren't spectators supposed to be guardians summoned to guard specific locations?
    For example, in BG2, the spectator had been bound and was guarding an important chest.

    Some encounters feel like as if Larian had designed the combat terrain and then shoved some random enemies in it.

    Hmm, this is the best example of a bad impression based on the YT video. The spectator part is a big spoiler for a very interesting quest. Something that cannot be judged without playing the game at all.

    You keep making claims like this, but I don't see how it would make any difference. What's on screen doesn't change if your holding a controller or not. Your eyes works whether you're clicking mouse or not. Do journal entries and dialogue somehow change if you aren't the one playing?

    I thought it's not so much about the fact that you play or you watch someone else playing, more that you see something taken out of context. You know, like quoting a politician or someone and it sounds like a completely different statement if you don't know what they said the hour before and the hour after that.

    JuliusBorisovBallpointMan
  • JuliusBorisovJuliusBorisov Member, Administrator, Moderator, Developer Posts: 21,700
    ThacoBell wrote: »
    Bumba wrote: »
    I also noticed some of the monsters are thrown there without following lore criteria... many streams i've seen show fights against spectators in random caves or locations in the underdark.
    Aren't spectators supposed to be guardians summoned to guard specific locations?
    For example, in BG2, the spectator had been bound and was guarding an important chest.

    Some encounters feel like as if Larian had designed the combat terrain and then shoved some random enemies in it.

    Hmm, this is the best example of a bad impression based on the YT video. The spectator part is a big spoiler for a very interesting quest. Something that cannot be judged without playing the game at all.

    You keep making claims like this, but I don't see how it would make any difference. What's on screen doesn't change if your holding a controller or not. Your eyes works whether you're clicking mouse or not. Do journal entries and dialogue somehow change if you aren't the one playing?

    Of course they do. This is a really fun quest, one of the highlights of the Early Access content for me. Would you imagine a small version of Yoshimo story? Would you be able to just look at the YT video and say: hey, that thief is completely PC-friendly, he directly says so, what on earth did the developers think when they added a PC-friendly thief who knows the Shadow Thieves?

  • ThacoBellThacoBell Member Posts: 12,009
    ThacoBell wrote: »
    Bumba wrote: »
    I also noticed some of the monsters are thrown there without following lore criteria... many streams i've seen show fights against spectators in random caves or locations in the underdark.
    Aren't spectators supposed to be guardians summoned to guard specific locations?
    For example, in BG2, the spectator had been bound and was guarding an important chest.

    Some encounters feel like as if Larian had designed the combat terrain and then shoved some random enemies in it.

    Hmm, this is the best example of a bad impression based on the YT video. The spectator part is a big spoiler for a very interesting quest. Something that cannot be judged without playing the game at all.

    You keep making claims like this, but I don't see how it would make any difference. What's on screen doesn't change if your holding a controller or not. Your eyes works whether you're clicking mouse or not. Do journal entries and dialogue somehow change if you aren't the one playing?

    Of course they do. This is a really fun quest, one of the highlights of the Early Access content for me. Would you imagine a small version of Yoshimo story? Would you be able to just look at the YT video and say: hey, that thief is completely PC-friendly, he directly says so, what on earth did the developers think when they added a PC-friendly thief who knows the Shadow Thieves?

    Not if you're actually watching a playthrough of the game, no. Besides, when playing the game for the first time, a lot of players probably DID think Yoshimo was just the standard early game friendly npc.

    @Arvia What context is lost when watching a full playthrough?

  • ArviaArvia Member, Moderator Posts: 1,635
    edited October 2020
    ThacoBell wrote: »
    ThacoBell wrote: »
    Bumba wrote: »
    I also noticed some of the monsters are thrown there without following lore criteria... many streams i've seen show fights against spectators in random caves or locations in the underdark.
    Aren't spectators supposed to be guardians summoned to guard specific locations?
    For example, in BG2, the spectator had been bound and was guarding an important chest.

    Some encounters feel like as if Larian had designed the combat terrain and then shoved some random enemies in it.

    Hmm, this is the best example of a bad impression based on the YT video. The spectator part is a big spoiler for a very interesting quest. Something that cannot be judged without playing the game at all.

    You keep making claims like this, but I don't see how it would make any difference. What's on screen doesn't change if your holding a controller or not. Your eyes works whether you're clicking mouse or not. Do journal entries and dialogue somehow change if you aren't the one playing?

    Of course they do. This is a really fun quest, one of the highlights of the Early Access content for me. Would you imagine a small version of Yoshimo story? Would you be able to just look at the YT video and say: hey, that thief is completely PC-friendly, he directly says so, what on earth did the developers think when they added a PC-friendly thief who knows the Shadow Thieves?

    Not if you're actually watching a playthrough of the game, no. Besides, when playing the game for the first time, a lot of players probably DID think Yoshimo was just the standard early game friendly npc.

    @Arvia What context is lost when watching a full playthrough?

    Well, if you're watching a complete playthrough and pay full attention all the time to everything the player does (something I wouldn't be capable of), then I guess it doesn't make much of a difference, except that you don't know how in some situations your own possibly different decisions would have affected the outcome.

    Edited: For clarification, did you watch a full playthrough or are you discussing a matter of principle? (And that's a neutral question, I'm just curious, not trying to provoke)

    JuliusBorisovThacoBell
  • ThacoBellThacoBell Member Posts: 12,009
    @Arvia Asking on principle, since I very strongly disagree that playing the game is mandatory to be able to see flaws and benefits to it. I'm planning on watching a playthrough when the game leaves early access.

    (And yes, I do pay attention to full playthroughs. Even going so far as to pause the video to read notes)

    kanisathaSjerrie
  • KaliestoKaliesto Member Posts: 268
    edited October 2020
    Dunski wrote: »
    I played both of the Divinity: Original Sin games, and while I could see that there was a lot of quality and features, the games just didn't satisfy me. There was something wrong with them that I couldn't put my finger on at first, but slowly I realized what it was: everything in Larian's games has to be funny, quirky and bizarre. Everything is an intentional all-out cliché on traditional RPG tropes, like a deliberate parody of the genre. Everything has to be crazy and over the top, nothing's allowed to be mundane and believable. It's not a serious setting, it's RPG comedy.

    Baldur's Gate had isolated pockets of comic relief and the occasional thematic exaggeration, but the games aren't completely saturated in fantasy troped cranked up to 150%. D:OS is what you'd get if you took BG but every companion was Minsc and Boo, every NPC was Noober, and every quest was the Machine of Lum the Mad. Larian's games completely lack the grit and believability of the BG series. When it was announced that they would make BG3, I was a little worried but prepared to give them the benefit of the doubt.

    Then we saw the previews and my worries grew. What they showed us came off more like Divinity 3 crammed into the Forgotten Realms. Here I'm not talking about the UI skin or the tooltip font, I'm talking about the tone and theme of the game itself. The cartoonish gameplay, the over-the-top visuals, the non-stop RPG clichés and the craziness of the game's fundamental concept where you're someone with a friggin' illithid tadpole implanted into your brain so you hijack a githyanki spaceship and crash it.

    It gave me no indication of the grounded, realistic-within-Faerûn nature of BG. Punting a goblin thirty feet into the distance, killing an enemy by throwing your boots at it, spell-like visual effects from the mundane act of jumping... it was just more of what I didn't like about Divinity. While we didn't get to see a whole lot of the game, what we saw did not feel like a Baldur's Gate game at all. It felt like they wanted to boost the sales of their Divinity 3 by hijacking the beloved Baldur's Gate name, without any genuine intentions of living up to the legacy of the series.

    I'll be watching streams on Tuesday to see if I was right, and if I was, I'm not buying it.



    I agree with everything you said; DnD has a issue where everybody is putting their two-cents in for decades, and has pretty much corrupted the setting, creatures, and among other things.

    DnD is not what it used to be.

    sarevok57BumbaWarChiefZekekanisatha
  • DunskiDunski Member Posts: 13
    edited October 2020
    I was never very impressed with D:OS and I don't know why so many people are in love with it. They were pretty bad RPGs in my opinion. The combat is awful, the writing is unbelievably bad, the character build mechanics (stats, skills, race, etc.) are extremely primitive and poorly balanced, and the gameplay itself just doesn't offer anything that I find appealing. It has some neat little gimmicks that are fairly innovative in a game of that type, but how much gameplay value is there really in being able to move furniture around and stuff like that?

    I had hoped that the D&D ruleset would fix at least some of this, but I wasn't familiar with 5e and had no idea how much D&D had been dumbed down. Last time I had anything to do with it was 3.5, and 5e feels like some kind of beginner's module in comparison. I can see how it might lend itself better to tabletop than the admittedly very convoluted 3.5 (and, I'm told, 4e, which I know nothing about) but it's too primitive for a video game. I miss putting points into skills, building around race-based class restrictions and class-based item restrictions, seeing my character's combat prowess grow through BAB and APR as I leveled up, etc.

    5e seems to reduce all kinds of systems into very simple mechanics like advantage and extremely standardized combat rolls. My unarmored mage has 15 AC while my platemail-wearing fighter has 18. My cleric, rogue and fighter all have the exact same attack bonus. My buff spells are permanent until rest so they're just always active, I don't have to think about when to use them or worry about running out. It's all so painfully streamlined that it takes away a lot of what I used to enjoy about D&D. My characters at level 4 feel exactly the same as they did at level 1. And since the full game caps out at level 10, I don't expect much to change.

    WarChiefZekekanisathahybridialBumba
  • BumbaBumba Member Posts: 7
    @JuliusBorisov I was not talking about the
    Spectator in the iron flask, that one is already a bit more acceptable because the Zhents are involved
    The problem is that there are more than one at the very start when you should deal with a bit less impressive creatures... When you should learn that even just a single wolf might be dangerous enough to TPK(of course that's not the case in 5e, since they have the ac of a rock).

    A bigger problem is
    Why is there a random spectator in a zone full of petrified Drow? Spectators cannot petrify and the room just has two gold piles that are laughable compared to what a mage capable of summoning a Spectator should want to ward.

    A friend that has the game streamed it for me, so unless i missed something by falling asleep, playing the game is not mandatory.

    This is an RPG and unlike multiplayer online shooters, soccer, racing games... story is the most important thing (should be, but for now, the game is just the usual overblown combatfest in Larian style with a pair of references). A pair of lore ties, and D&D gameplay won't be what will make me scream "Aw this game is soooo good".

    Like i didn't play Torment for the combat (imo a bit wonky), i won't care about the gameplay here... but sure as hell i will care about the claim of it being "A sequel faithful to the originals" and about Larian's terrible writing.

    Sjerrie
  • AmmarAmmar Member Posts: 1,178
    To be fair Spectator's are not done well in 5th edition. They are simply much too low CR to be worth summoning for a decently powerful wizard having to use Beholder stalks as a summoning component. They are only CR 3. Maybe fine to guard the silverware, but that's it.

    WarChiefZekeBumbaThacoBell
  • BumbaBumba Member Posts: 7
    Ammar wrote: »
    To be fair Spectator's are not done well in 5th edition. They are simply much too low CR to be worth summoning for a decently powerful wizard having to use Beholder stalks as a summoning component. They are only CR 3. Maybe fine to guard the silverware, but that's it.

    The opposite problem is true as well. Wizards that are not that powerful, wouldn't be able to get beholder eyestalks very easily and would not really benefit from having a Spectator's services.

    Powerful wizards would probably just summon Spectators to guard the entrances to their lairs and wear down eventual intruders (and by intruders, i mean either very low level PCs or just wandering thieves/curious/ insistent people.)

  • JidokwonJidokwon Member Posts: 350
    I really haven't played it very far, but, like the Divinity games, there is no option to properly and simply pause the game. Turn-based mode can pause the game, but it acts entirely different than how pausing the original games (or any other games with real time elements) works. Not sure why Sven hates having a proper pause option so much.

    I haven't figured out how to highlight every object on the screen. I can highlight some corpses and a few types of containers, but that's about it. So many other possible objects available and it's very hard to spot many of them.

    kanisatha
Sign In or Register to comment.